This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at |http : //books . google . com/
MUSEUM
■pn
A 694,681
filttLimlOAi. syiiVEY— iJliLaxIN Ho. la
< MART dBRtU.i^>L LM*r
HUNTING LICENSES
HEIR HISTORY, ORIECTS, AND LIMITATIONS
.1. S, fAL^VUCtt
ASSISTANT IS rUAKiJf .-v ..vxlK JUKSKHVATIMN
WASUINbTUN
UM.iJBXMBNT I-KISTIN': orFICB
1 !Ml4
2>S7
.?i7
NOTE.
On page 47 of Bulletin 19 on *' Hunting Licenses'' reference is made
to the case of Cummings v. People, involving the constitutionality of
the license law of Illinois. On October 24, 1904, the Supreme Court of
Illinois rendered a decision in this case upholding the constitutionality
of the law and quoting with approval the decisions of the Supreme Court
of New Jersey in the case of Allen v, Wyckoff, and the United States
circuit court of the northern district of Illinois in the case of In re Eberle.
The court holds: (1) That the proviso in Section 25 of the Illinois
law allowing owners and tenants of farm lands to hunt without obtain-
ing a license, is valid; (2) That lands owned or rented as game pre-
serves are not farm lands, and the owners or tenants are not entitled to
hunt without a license ; (3) That the clause in Section 32 of the law
providing that nothing in the act shall apply to persons hunting by
invitation on lands of another **must be held invalid, except in so far
as it can be given a limited effect," adding that *' the purpose of the
legislature doubtless was to authorize the owner of lands to invite another
person to do that which he might himself lawfully do, and so construed
the proviso can be sustained."
"S:.
Bull. 19, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Plate
Fig. 1.— States having Nonresident License Laws in 1900.
Fig. 2.— States having Nonresident License Laws in 1 904.
MAPS SHOWING PROGRESS IN NONRESIDENT LICENSE LEGISLATION.
Inclosed names indicate States which grant special privileges for taking out a limited amount
of game. States which are ruled do not permit hunting by nonresidents.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY— BULLETIN No. 19
C. HART MERRIAM, Chief
HUNTING LICENSES
THEIR HISTORY, OBJECTS, AND LIMITATIONS
BY
f r
t: s. palmer
ASSISTANT IN CHARGP: OF GAME PRESERVATION
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1904
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.
U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Division of Biological Survey,
Washington^ D, C. , August 20^ 1901p.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith, as Bulletin No. 19, a
report on '' Hunting licenses, their history, objects, and limitations,"
prepared b^^ Dr. T. S. Palmer, assistant in charge of game preserva-
tion. The object of this bulletin is to render generally accessible the
'^information collected by the Department on the subject of resident
^'and nonresident licenses. In States which have adopted the license
sj^stem statistics regarding hunting not previously collected are now
available. Thus the figures here presented show that during 1903 the
receipts from licenses exceeded $10,000 in each of 9 States, and Illinois
and Wisconsin each collected nearly $100,000; the total number of
hunters in 10 States which license both residents and nonresidents
exceeded 261,000; and the States which attracted most nonresident
hunters were Maine, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.
Respectfully,
C. Hart Merriam,
Chief Biological Survey.
Hon. James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture,
3
154579
CONTENTS.
Page.
Introduction 9
History of hunting licenses 9
Discrimination against nonresidents 10
Nonresident licenses. 12
Local licenses 12
Market-hunting licenses 14
General licenses 15
Resident licenses 16
Summary of license legislation - 19
Details of licenses 24
Forms of licenses 24
Fees 25
Details of issue ; 26
Exemptions .^ , 30
Objects of hunting licenses 33
Nonresident 33
Resident 36
Comparison of statistics 37
Limitations of- the license system 42
Special privileges 42
Cost of collection : 42
Enforcement 43
Present status of license legislation in the United States 45
Decisions of the courts on the constitutionality of nonresident license laws ... 46
Hunting licenses in foreign countries 51
Great Britain '. 51
Germany 52
New Zealand 52
Japan 52
German East Africa 53
German Southwest Africa 53
Sudan , 53
Transvaal 54
Index of license legislation in the United States and Canada 55
References to articles on nonresident licenses 67
5
ILLUSTRATIONS.
Page.
Plate I. Map showing progress in nonresident license legislation Frontispiece
Fig. 1. States having nonresident license laws in 1900.
Fig. 2. States having nonresident license laws in 1904.
II. Map showing progress in resident license legislation 18
Fig. 1. States having resident license laws in 1900.
Fig. 2. States having resident license laws in 1904.
III. The photograph license of Indiana, 1903 24
IV. Resident licenses — Illinois and Minnesota 80
V. Diagram showing receipts from licenses in 10 States, 19C3 38
VI. Nonresident coupon license of Wisconsin 42
VII. Extremes of nonresident licenses — Washington and W^yoming 44
7
HUNTINa LICENSES: THEIK HISTOEY, OBJECTS, AND
LIMITATIONS.
INTRODUCTION.
Two of the most important problems of practical game protection
are how to enforce the laws and how to secure the funds necessary for
the purpose. Without funds it is manifestly impossible either to pro-
vide *or maintain the servic^e required to carry the laws into effect;
and if no serious effort is made to secure compliance with the law
public interest in game protection flags until it becomes diflScult to
secure either appropriations or such legislation as will yield revenue
for warden service. The most successful method of raising funds
thus far devised is a system of licenses which in effect amounts to a
direct tax on those who hunt. Several States depend almost entirely
on some system of this kind for maintaining their warden service, and
others receive from it important additions to their game protection
funds. How important such a source of revenue may become can
readily be appreciated from the fact that during the past year Maine
collected license fees amounting to more than $25,000, Wisconsin
$90,000, and Illinois nearly $100,000. In some States this money is
derived principally from resident, in others from nonresident, licenses.
The requirements in regard to fees and the method of obtaining
licenses differ widely in different sections of the country, and eveiy
sportsman who resides in a State which has license laws or who visits
States where licenses are required is directly affected b}^ the system.
As interest in the subject is widespread, it seems desirable to bring
together data showing not only the origin and development of hunting
licenses, but also their advantages and disadvantages. Few questions
in game protection have attracted more attention in recent 3^ears, and
none, perhaps, has been more fruitful of discussion or led to more
diverse opinions.
HISTORY OF HUNTING LICENSES.
It is commonly supposed that the license feature of game protection,
which by many is regarded as unnecessary and unjust, is a recent devel-
ojjment; but, although most of the present laws have been enacted
10 HUNTINO LICENSES.
during the last ten years, even a hasty review of the subject will show
that the system originated at a very eariy date in the United States,^
and was in reality an outgrowth of a discriminating attitude toward
nonresidents. Hunting licenses were required in some of the colonies,
particularly Virginia, more than two hundred years ago, thoug^h
their object was somewhat different from those of modern times.
One of the earliest statutes may be found in ''An act for a free trade
with Indians," passed in Virginia in April, 1691 (3 Hening's Stat., 69),
the object of which was stated as follows:
And for the future prevention of such mischeifes as have frequently happened at
huntings, commonly called fire huntings and other huntings remote from the planta-
tions, Bee it enacted by the atUhority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted. That no person
or persons whatsoever shall hereafter presume to goe an hunting remote from the
English plantations without first having obtained the lycense and permission of their
Majesties leiutenant governour or commander in cheife for the time being and the
councell of state under such restrictions, limitations and conditions as at the time of
giveing such permission shall be by them thought fit to be enjoy ned and appointed -
, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NONRESIDENTS.
In an act passed on March 27, 1719 (Nevill, 86), nonresidents in
New Jersey were prohibited from taking oysters or putting them on
board a vessel not wholly owned by a resident. The discrimination
against nonresidents in the matter of gathering oysters thus begun
nearly two centuries ago has been maintained to the present time by
oyster laws similar to the act of 1719 passed in 1820, 1846, and 1899.
A similar discrimination ma}^ also be found in an act passed in Rhode
Island in 1844.
In the second game law enacted in North Carolina (Laws of 1745,
Chap. Ill) all persons not possessed of a settled habitation in the prov-
ince were required to have a certificate that they had planted and
tended 5,000 hills of corn before they were permitted to hunt deep.
Section 4 of this act reads:
That every person who shall hunt and kill deer in the King's waste within this
Province, and who is not possessed of a settled habitation in the same shall be
obliged to produce a certificate when required of his having planted and tended five
thousand corn-hills, at five feet distance each hill, the preceding year, or season, in
the county where he shall hunt, under the hands of at least two Justices of the
Peace of the said county and the hand of at least one of the churchwardens of the
Parish where such person planted and tended such corn, as aforesaid.
This law, which contains the genn of the hunting license, was amended
twenty-three years later (Laws of 1768, Chap. XIII) so as to deny the
privilege of hunting deer to persons not having a freehold of 100 acres
of land in the province, or not having tended 10,000 corn hills during
the previous year.
« It is sometimes said that the license idea originated in Canada, but this is not
strictily the case. ^
DISCBIMINATIOK AGAIN ST NOKRESIDENTS. 11
In 1840 Virginia prohibited nonresidents from hunting wild fowl on
beaches or marshes below the head of tide water, and maintained this
restriction until 1903. In 1846 New Jersey made nonresidents liable
to a fine of $15 and forfeiture of their guns to the informer for tres-
pass with a gun, while residents convicted of the same offense were
liable merely to a fine of $5 and costs, or less than one-tliird the
penalty imposed on nonresidents.
In 1854 North Carolina prohibited nonresidents from hunting wild
fowl in Currituck County, assigning the following reasons in the
preamble of the bill:
Whereas, large numbers of wild fowl collect during the fall and winter, in the
waters of Currituck County, which are a source of great profit to the inhabitants
thereof; and whereas, persons from other States, not residents of this State, shoot
and kill, decoy and frighten the same, to the great annoyance and detriment of the
citizens of our own State: Now Be it enacted, etc. (Laws of 1854, chap. 55.)
Under this act all persons who had not resided in the State for at
least twelve months were prohibited from hunting or killing wild fowl
in the waters of Currituck County. Recently in North Carolina and
Virginia nonresidents hunting wild fowl in certain counties have been
prohibited from shooting from sink boxes or boats, in order that this
privilege might be reserved for residents alone.
B}^ an act of December 11, 1858, Georgia prohibited nonresidents
from hunting or fishing within the limits of the State, in order, it was
said, to prevent strangers and others from holding conversation with
slaves. Delaware in 1863, following Virginia's example, made it
unlawful for nonresidents to kill wild ducks, geese, or other water-
fowl on any of the marshes or waters of the State, under a penalty of
$50 to $100. Three years later Florida, by act of June 13, 1866, pro-
hibited nonresidents from camping or fire hunting, with or without
dogs or guns, in Taylor and Lafayette counties. In 1880 Maryland
prohibited nonresidents of the five counties bordering the Patuxent
from shooting snipe, rail, and wild fowl on the waters or marshes of
the river, and prohibited use of sink boxes in Queen Anne County by
nonresidents of the county. Several similar instances of discrimina-
tion appeared in subsequent legislation of the State, and culminated in
1890 in a provision prohibiting nonresidents of Parsons Creek, Church
Creek, and Neck districts, in Dorchester County, from shooting wild
fowl on Little Choptank River.
The West and South have made even more severe discriminations
against the nonresident. Missouri, in 1877, prohibited nonresidents
from hunting game for market, and two years later prohibited them
from hunting at all within the State, a provision which still remains
in force. Similar action was taken by Wyoming about 1886, but
the absolute prohibition then established was changed in 1895 to a
$20 nonresident license. In 1879 Tennessee prohibited nonresidents
12 HUNTING LICENSES.
from hunting deer for profit in certain counties, and in 1889 pro-
hibited all hunting b}'^ nonresidents in certain others; but these pro-
visions were replaced by license provisions in the general game law
of 1903. Absolute prohibition has recently found favor in one or two
other States. It was adopted by Louisiana in 1902,^ and by Arkansas
(except in Mississippi Count}'^) in 1903. Louisiana, however, sub-
stituted a license fee in 1904; so that at present Missouri and Arkan-
sas are the only States which deny the nonresident the privilege of
hunting within their borders.
NONRESIDENT LICENSES.
The history of nonresident license legislation may be convenientl3"
divided into three periods, which overlap one another: (1) Develop-
ment of the local license, beginning in 1872; (2) development of the
market-hunting license, beginning in 1875; and (3) development of
the general license, beginning in 1878.
LOCAL LICENSES.
The local license had its rise in the Eastern States. The first law
containing a nonresident-license provision was apparently that passed
in 1873 in New Jersey, under the title, ''An act to incorporate the
West Jersey Game Protective Association.*" (Acts of 1873, chap. 470,
p. 553.) This association was incorporated for fifteen years, and sec-
tion 7 of the act of incorporation provided:
That if any person or persons nonresidents of this state, shall kill, destroy, hunt,
or take any doe, buck, fawn, partridge, moor fowl, grouse, quail, or woodcock, at
any time within the counties of Camden, Gloucester, Atlantic, Salem, Cumberland
and Cape May in this state without complying with the bylaws of this Game Pro-
tective Society then the person or persons so offending shall forfeit and pay the sum
of $50 each, for each and every offence * * * provided nothing in this Act shall
prevent residents of this state from taking game or fish, subject to the existing laws
of this state.
The membership fee was fixed at $5 for the first year and $2 per year
thereafter, and nonresidents were required to procure membership
certificates before hunting in the six counties above mentioned. These
certificates thus became in effect nonresident licenses. In 1878 a some-
what broader general act was passed (Laws of 1878, chap. 184), applicable
to other associations in New Jersey. The Delaware Game Protective
Association was incorporated by act of legislature in 1879 along much
the same lines. Its membership fees were the same as those of the
West Jersey Game Protective Association, and nonresidents wishing
to hunt in the State were first required to secure certificates of mem-
bership. (Laws of 1879, chap. 111.) The same idea was later adopted
o'The police jury of Caddo Parish, La., in lft96, however, passed a measure pro-
hibiting hunting by nonresidents in that parish. (Forest and Stream, XLVII, p.
386, Nov. 14, 1896.)
NONRESIDENT LICENSES LOCAL. 13
by the counties on the eastern shore of Virginia, through the passage
of a law in 1894 requiring nonresidents of the State to become mem-
bers of the Eastern Shore Game Protective Association before hunting
wild fowl in these counties. The by-laws originally fixed the initiation
fee of members at $1 and the annual dues at $1, but in 1901 the license
fee required of nonresidents was increased to $10, the rate adopted
by the State in its general license law two years later.
In 1875 Florida adopted a statute (Acts of 1875, chap. 2055, p. 62)
making it unlawful for any nonresident to hunt for the purpose of con-
veying game beyond the limits of the State without first obtaining
from the clerk of the county in which he proposed to hunt a license
at a cost of $25. In case several persons hunted together, six could
be included under the same license on payment of an additional $5
each.
In 1882 Maryland laid the foundation of a county license system by
requiring nonresidents to secure licenses to hunt game in Caroline
County; and in 1886 established a like requiiement in the counties of
Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Kent, Prince George, Queen Anne, and
Talbot. In 1888 three additional counties — Charles, Dorchester, and
Howard — adopted the system; and more recently all the other counties
in the State have followed their example; but in 1894 Anne Arundel
repealed the license provision and prohibited nonresidents from hunting
within the county. (Laws of 1894, chap. 103.)
In 1884 New York passed a special license law (Laws of 1884, chap.
185), which required nonresidents of Richmond County (Staten Island)
to secure a $10 license before hunting game in that count3^ This local
license law remained in force until repealed by the general game law
of 1892, eight years later, and is apparently the only license of the
kind enacted by the State. The general licenses of 1900-1903, reciprocal
in character and without fixed fees, merit special consideration, and
will be discussed in connection with similar licenses of other States. •
In 1892 South Carolina required a $25 license of nonresidents hunt-
ing in Beaufort County, and in 1893 extended the law to the rest of the
State. In 1899 Illinois adopted a $10 nonresident county license, and
West Virginia a $25 county license (both of which have since been
changed to State licenses). In 1900 Iowa established a $10 nonresident
county license; in 1901 South Dakota and Washington adopted $10
county licenses; and in 1903 Colorado established a county license for
nonresidents hunting birds, all of which still remain in eflfect, except
that of Washington, which has been replaced b}^ a hunting license
required alike of residents and nonresidents.
This may be said to cover the first period of nonresident-license
legislation. The licenses in New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia were
in the nature of fees for membership in private corporations, and
those of all the States except Delaware were alike in being local
14 HUNTING LICENSES.
licenses, in most cases good only for the county of issue. With a few
exceptions the license fees were comparatively small, usually less than
$10. The county license has not met with general favor. It has been
, adopted by only a few States, and is now in force in less than one-third
of the States which have the license system.
MARKET-HUNTING LICENSES.
The effort in some of the Southern States to restrict market hunting-
and to prevent the export of game from the State for commercial pur-
poses brought about a twofold result — the development of the market-
hunting license and the absolute exclusion of nonresidents from
hunting privileges. A correspondent of the American Field, who
states that he has observed game conditions in Arkansas for twent\—
five years, asserts that 90 per cent of the game killed in that State has
been killed by market hunters. (Am. Field, LIX, p. 216, Feb. 28,
1903.) In view of this statement, which apparently has strong inde-
pendent support, it is interesting to notice that Arkansas seems to have
been the pioneer in restrictions on market hunters. In the act of
March 6, 1875, a tax of $10 was levied on all nonresident trappers,
hunters, seiners or netters of fish following their calling in the State.
Twenty-two years later, in 1897, the tax was increased to $25. (Acts
of 1897, p. 113.) In 1903 two bills were passed by the legislature — one
imposing a tax of $300 on all nonresidents hunting in the State, the
other absolutely prohibiting hunting by nonresidents except in Mis-
sissippi County. The license bill was vetoed; the prohibition bill
became a law.
Missouri, in 1877 (Laws of 1877, p. 333), prohibited nonresidents
from hunting game for the purpose of selling it or removing it from
the State, and in 1879 extended this law so as to prohibit nonresidents
from hunting at all within the State.
In 1879 Tennessee enacted legislation prohibiting nonresidents
from hunting deer for profit in some counties, and in 1889 in others
restricted such hunting to persons hunting on their own lands. These
provisions were repealed in 1903 by the adoption of a general game
law which provided a market-hunting license of $25 and authorized
the State game warden to collect from nonresident sportsmen the same
fee which residents of Tennessee would be subject to in their States.
In 1884 South Carolina enacted a law requiring each nonresident
engaged in the business of hunting, ducking, fishing, or gathering oys-
ters or terrapin, or in the sale of game in the counties along the sea
board — Georgetown, Charleston, Beaufort, Colleton, and Berkeley — to
pay a license at the rate of $25 for each nonresident hand emploj^ed.
(Laws of 1884, p. 734.) These licenses were not required of persons
hunting or fishing on their own lands or waters included within thera,
nor, under an amendment passed in 1892, of persons authorized hy
NONRESIDENT LICENSES GENERAL. 15
landowners to hunt on their property. By act of 1885 a fixed fee of
$25 was imposed for the license and also a fee of $25 for each nonresi-
dent hand employed, and in 1888 these fees were increased to $500 and
$100, respectively, thus raising the cost to a point far above thalb of
any other market-hunting license. Neither of these statutes appears
in the code of 1902, and South Carolina is at present without a non-
resident license law.
In 1899 Georgia (Acts of 1899, part 1, p. 96) adopted a law author-
izing a $25 market-hunting license, but provided that the act was
not to be in force in any county until recommended by the grand jury
of that county.
Oregon, the only other State to adopt the market-hunting license,
passed a law in 1901 niaking it unlawful for any person not a resident
of the State to hunt any game for market purposes without having
first obtained a $10 license from the State game and forestry warden.
(Laws of 1901, p. 231, sec. 38.)
By an act passed in 1902 Louisiana, following the lead of Missouri
and Arkansas, adopted absolute prohibition in the case of nonresident
hunters. This act, however, was replaced in 1904 by a $10 nonresident
hunting license and a $25 market-hunting license. Thus at the present
time the restrictions on market hunting in the South have developed
into absolute prohibition in Arkansas and Missouri, into market
licenses in Georgia and Louisiana, a market license and modified non-
resident license in Tennessee, and the abolition of all licenses in South
Carolina. The moderate market license of Oregon remains unchanged.
It is to be observed that the easternmost of these States, South Caro-
lina and Georgia, adopted the county license system, and that there
seems to have been a marked inclination toward $25. as the amount of
the fee.
GENERAL LICENSES.
The general license seems to have had its origin in Canada. The
same feeling of discrimination so conspicuous in the game legislation
of the United States existed in Canada, but instead of manifesting
itself in absolute prohibition it there took the more liberal form of a
system of high licenses for hunting big game. New Brunswick
apparently led the way about 1878, and was followed by Quebec in
1882, Nova Scotia in 1884, Ontario in 1888, Newfoundland in 1889,
British Columbia and Manitoba in 1890, and the Northwest Territories
in 1893. The license sytem thus extended throughout Canada, except
Prince Edward Island, Yukon, and the Unorganized Territories. Fees
varying from $20 to $25 were charged in some cases for big game
only, but in others for hunting game of any kind.
In 1895 general licenses found favor in the Northwestern States, and
laws undoubtedly modeled after those of the Canadian Provinces were
16 HUNTING LICENSES.
enacted in several States. This sudden demand for nonresident licenses
is interesting from several standpoints, and may have been influenced
by two circum;stances. On January 9-10, 1895, occurred the second
annual meeting of the National Game, Bird and Fish Protective Asso-
ciation at Chicago, at which resolutions were adopted foreshadowing
methods of game protection, including shooting licenses, which have
since been incorporated into law.^ About this time a bill was pending
in the Illinois legislature practically opening the Chicago markiets to
unlimited sale of game from other States.* Whatever may have been the
effect of this convention and of the Illinois game bill, they certainly-
served to draw attention to the question of discriminating against
nonresidents, and although it may have been only a coincidence, non-
resident license laws were adopted almost immediately by four States^ —
Wyoming in February, North Dakota in March, Minnesota in April,
and Michigan in Ma37^. Wisconsin followed in 1897, four other States
in 1899, six in 1901, and eight in 1903.
RESIDENT LICENSES.
The history of modern resident hunting licenses properly begins
with the system of special licenses developed in some of the counties
of Maryland in the early seventies and eighties. Shooting wild fowl
from sink boxes, sneak boats, or in some cases from blinds was pro-
hibited except under license, and these licenses were issued only to
residents. The first of these special laws was passed in 1872 (Laws of
1872, chap. 54) for the protection of wild fowl on the Susquehanna
Flats, at the head of Chesapeake Bay. Section 7 of this act provided:
No owner, master, hirer, borrower, employee of any owner, or other person, shall
use or employ any sink box, or sneak boat of any description whatever, for the pur-
pose of shooting at wild water-fowl therefrom, northward of the line named and
described in section 380 [drawn half a mile north of Spesutie Island from Turkey
Point, in Cecil County, to the opposite shore of Harford County], without first
obtaining a license to so use and employ the same as is hereinafter provided.
The license fee for a sink box was $20, and for a sneak boat $5.
The licenses were issued by the clerks of Harford and Cecil courfes,
and the clerk was allowed 75 cents for issuing each license.
Under section 11 of the same act applicants were required to make
oath that they were bona fide residents of the State, and a fine of $50
to $100 was provided for violating any of the license provisions, one-
half of which was to be paid to the informer and one-half to the school
commissioners of the county. A board of special police was appointed
« Am. Field, XLIII, pp. 51-52, Jan. 19, 1895.
& House bill 56, commonly known as the /Blow Bill.' For full text of this meas-
ure and the discussion relating to it, see Am. Field, XLIII, pp. 123, 147, 1895.
c A game bill containing a $50-nonresident license provision was also introduced in
the Nebaska legislature, but failed to pass. — Forest and Stream, XLIV, p. 307, April
20, 1895.
RESIDENT LICENSES. 17
to enforce the provisions of the act, and these officers, commonly
known as ducking police, were authorized to seize any sink box or
boat used in violation of law. The issue of licenses was thus restricted
to residents of the State. Nonresidents were not denied the privilege
of hunting waterfowl, but they could not hunt successfully without
sink boxes or boats; and, as these could only be used under license,
residents who alone were authorized to obtain licenses could control
hunting and charge any fees they saw fit for their boxes or boats.
In 1876 the use of sink boxes in the waters of Anne Arundel County
with certain exceptions, or on Chesapeake Bay within the limits of the
county, was restricted to licensed residents of the county. These
licenses were issued at a cost of $30 each. (Laws of 1876, chap. 78.)
In 1882 licenses at $2 each (and a clerk's fee of 50 cents) were required
for the use of ' booby ' or ' bush ' blinds on the Magothy, Severn, and
South rivers. It is noticeable, however, that the issue of licenses for
blinds was not restricted to residents, and that the owner could extend
to any person the privilege of shooting from his blind during the open
season. (Laws of 1882, chap. 400; 1886, chap. 366.)
In 1878 residents of Cecil County were required to obtain licenses, at
a cost of $10, to use sink boxes on the waters of the Elk and Bohemia
rivers (Laws oi 1878, chap. 292); and in 1880 similar $10 licenses were
required in Queen Anne County, and in Cecil and Kent counties for
the use of sink boxes on the Sassafras River. (Laws of 1880, chaps. 42
and 370.)
Turning to Canada, mention should be made of a special $5 license
which came into use in the Province of Quebec in 1887.'* This license
differed from ordinary resident licenses in being issued onl}^ for killing
5 deer and 5 caribou in excess of the limit prescribed by law. The fee
still remains the same, but since 1895 the number of deer and caribou
has been reduced to 3.
The system of general resident hunting licenses apparently origi-
nated in Michigan in 1895* as a measure to restrict the slaughter of
deer. In his annual report for 1894, Charles S. Hampton, game and
lish warden of Michigan, said:
I am of the opinion that a law licensing all hunters, those of our own State being
charged a mere nominal fee, while nonresidents are compelled to pay twenty-five dol-
« Reference may here be made to a somewhat different form of license which was
proposed in Colorado in 1885, but not adopted. Licenses were to be issued to immi-
grants traveling in unsettled parts of the State, allowing them to kill game during
the close season for periods not exceeding 30 days at a cost of $5 or $10. ( Am. Field,
XXIII, p. 121, Feb. 7, 1885.)
& It was, however, advocated in Illinois at the same time. Section 7 of the * Blow
Bill,' which failed to pass the Illinois legislature of 1895, contained a provision for a
$1 license for all persons except owners or occupants of cultivated faring hunting on
their own lands. (Am. Field, XLIII, p. 124, Feb, 9, 1895.)
6095— No. 19—04 2
18 HUNTING LICENSES.
lars, is for the present, at least, the best restrictive measure. The decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States in McCready vs. Virjfinia *(94 U. S. 391) would
seem to set at rest all doubts as to the constitutionality of such a law. Any man
carrying a gun and not having a license in his possessioa, or refusing to show it to
any citizen on demand, should be subject to penalty. ( Fourth Biennial Report, p. 1 0. )
Acting on this suggestion, the legislature in 1895 adopted a 50-cent
resident license and a $25 nonresident license for hunting deer.
Hawaii, in 1896, before its annexation, passed a law establishing
a $5 hunting license for the island of Oahu, and this law still remains
in force without change. The high rate is perhaps due in part to the
fact that this license is a permit to carry firearms as well as to hunt
game, but more especially to the fact that all the game on the island is
introduced, and in order to prevent its extermination stricter regula-
tions and higher fees are necessary than would be required under ordi-
nary circumstances.
In 1897 Wisconsin adopted licenses for deer hunting similar to those
of Michigan, but made the rate for residents $1. In 1899 Minnesota
adopted a 25-cent license for big game; North Dakota, a 75-cent
license for all game, and Wyoming, a dollar license for big game; the
Wyoming license is required, however, only outside the county in
which the hunter resides. Maine also issued licenses at $4 each,
allowing residents to kill one deer during the month of September, for
food purposes only, in certain counties;^ but the law met with so
much opposition that it was repealed two years later. One dollar
resident licenses for big game were adopted in 1901 by South Dakota,
and for all game by Nebraska and Washington; in 1903 for all game
by Illinois, Colorado, and Idaho, and for waterfowl during the fall
season by Indiana; and in 1904 for all game in Somerset County, Md.
Thus the resident license system has spread to 13 States and to 3 prov-
inces of Canada.* (See PI. II.)
At first licenses were required only for hunting big game, but there
is now a strong tendency to extend them to cover all game, though of
States having resident licenses Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota,
Wyoming, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec still have no licenses
for small game, while in Indiana none is required except for shooting
waterfowl in the fall. The fee, which exhibited considerable diversity
at first — 50 cents in Michigan, $1 in Wisconsin, 25 cents in Minnesota,
75 cents in North Dakota, $4 in Maine, and $5 in Hawaii — is now uni-
formly $1, with the exception of the 75-cent fee in North Dakota and
Michigan, the $5 fee in Hawaii, the $2 fees in New Brunswick and
Ontario, and the $5 fees in Ontario and Quebec. Some diversity still
«In eight of the sixteen counties: Oxford, Franklin, Somerset, Piscataquis, Penob-
scot, Aroostook, Hancock, and Washington, which comprise more than four-fifths of
the area of the State.
b Including Quebec, which issues such licenses only for killing big game iu excess
of the bag limit.
Bull. 19, Biological Survey, U S. Depi. of Agriculture.
Plate II.
Fig. 1.— States having Resident License Laws in 1900.
Fig. 2.— States having Resident License Laws in 1904.
MAPS SHOWING PROGRESS IN RESIDENT LICENSE LEGISLATION.
SUMMARY OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 19
exists in regard to the territory covered by licenses. In South Dakota
and Washington and in Somerset County, Md., they are good only in
the county of issue; in Nebraska and Wyoming they are not necessary
in the county of residence; and in Illinois and North Dakota they are
not required in the case of a citizen hunting on his own land.
SUMMARY OF LICENSE LEGISLATION.
The progress of legislation outlined above may perhaps be brought
out more clearly by summarizing under each State and Province the
important laws and changes in fees. In the appendix, p. 55, will be
found a chronological index of the license laws from 1872 to 1904.
The year 1872 is taken as the starting point because it apparently
marks the first enactment of a hunting license law in the United States.
It should also be explained that the gradation from an ordinary license
through one with an exorbitant fee to absolute prohibition is so grad-
ual that it is difficult to draw the line of demarkation. For this reason
prohibitive statutes passed since 1872 are included in the summary,
and although no systematic attempt has been made to collect earlier
ones, those of most interest are referred to on pp. 10-12.
TABLE SHOWING DATES OF ADOPTION OF LICENSE SYSTEM AND
PRINCIPAL CHANGES IN FEES.
Arkansas. — 1875, $10 market-hunting license; 1897, fee increased to $25; 1908,
nonresidejits prohibited from hunting in the State, except in Mississippi County.
Colorado. — 1903, $25 nonresident general license, $1 a day bird license ($2 first day),
$1 resident license.
Delaware. — 1879, Nonresident license, $5 first year, $2 subsequent years.
Florida. — 1875, $25 nonresident county license for hunting game for export; 1899,
$10 nonresident county license for deer, turkeys, or quail; 1903, $10 nonresident
county license for any game. Nonresident license, $1 per day, in La Fayette County.
Georgia. — 1-899, $25 market-hunting license.
Hawaii. — 1896, $5 hunting license in Oahu.
Idaho. — 1908, $25 nonresident license for all game, $5 license for birds, $1 resident
license.
Illinois. — 1899, $10 nonresident county license; 1901, $10 nonresident State license;
1903, $15 nonresident license, $1 resident license.
Indiana. — 1901, $25 nonresident license, free permits for hunting squirrels and
wild fowl October 1-November 10 issued to residents and licensed nonresidents; 1903,
$1 resident permit for hunting wild fowl October 1-November 10 (free to licensed
nonresidents).
Iowa. — 1900, $10 nonresident county license.
Kentneky. — 1902, $25 nonresident license; 1904, variable fee established.
Lonisiana.— 1902, Nonresidents prohibited from hunting in the State; 1904, $10
nonresident license (required also of unnaturalized residents), $25 market-hunting
license.
Maine. — 1899, $6 nonresident, $4 resident, September deer license; 1901, law
repealed; 1903, $15 nonresident State license for deer and moose, $5 nonresident
license for ducks and sea and shore birds in 5 counties.
Maryland. — 1872, $20 sink box and $5 sneak-boat licenses on Susquehanna flats for
residents of Cecil and Htirford counties.
20 HUNTING LICENSES.
1876, $30 sink-box license for residents of Anne Arundel County.
187.8, $10 sink-box license-on Elk and Bohemia rivers for residents of Cecil County;
fee for sink-box license on Susquehanna flats reduced to $10 in case of residents of
Cecil County.
1880, $10 sink-box license on Sassafras River required of residents of Cecil and
Kent counties; nonresidents of Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, Prince George, and
St. Mary counties prohibited from shooting snipe, rail, and wildfowl on Patuxent
River; $10 sink-box license for residents of Queen Anne County (nonresident not
allowed to use sink box).
1882, $2 'blind' license on Magothy, Severn, and South rivers in Anne Arundel
County; $4.50 nonresident license for rabbits, muskrats, quail or partridges, wood-
cock, rail, and ducks in Caroline County.
1886, Nonresident county licenses as follows: Anne Arundel and Prince George,
$6 (rabbits, partridges, and woodcock); Baltimore, $10 (rabbits and woodcock); Caro-
line, $19.50 (rabbits, muskrats, quail or partridges, woodcock, rail, and ducks);
Kent, $4.50 (all game); Queen Anne, $4.50 (all game); Talbot, $9.50 (all game).
1888, Caroline County license fee reduced to $4.50; nonresident county licenses as
follows: Charles, $20 (rabbits, partridges, and woodcock), $25 (wildfowl); Dor-
chester, $5 (rabbits, partridges, and woodcock); Howard, $7.50 (all game).
1890, Nonresidents prohibited from hunting wildfowl on Little Choptank River
in Dorchester County; nonresident county licenses as follows: Somerset, $9.50 (all
game); Worcester, $10 (wildfowl).
1892, Nonresidents hunting snipe, rail, and wild fowl on Patuxent River in Anne
Arundel and Prince George counties required to have permission of a majority of
the residents near the river and to employ licensed boat; $2 pusher's license required
on Patuxent River; $20 nonresident license for rabbits, partridges, and woodcock in
St. Mary County.
1894, Citizens of Calvert County allowed to hunt snipe, ortolan, and wild fowl on
Patuxent River in Anne Arundel and Prince George counties; nonresidents pro-
hibited from hunting in Anne Arundel County or shooting wild fowl in Charles
County; sink- box license on Elk and Bohemia rivers in Cecil County abolished and
use of boats for hunting wild fowl prohibited. Nonresident county licenses as fol-
lows: Baltimore, $10 (gray squirrels, rabbits, partridges, pheasants, and woodcock);
Carroll, $10 (squirrels, rabbits, partridges, pheasants, and woodcock); Harford, $10
(rabbits, partridges, pheasants, woodcock, rail, reedbird, and robins); Kent, $15
(rabbits and birds); Prince George, $20 (rabbits, partridges, and woodcock).
1900, $10 sink-box license on Elk and Bohemia rivers reestablished. Nonresident
county licenses for hunting any game as follows: Garrett, $25; Somerset, $9.50.
1902, Nonresident county licenses as follows: Calvert, $10 (rabbits, partridges, and
woodcock); Cecil, $5.50 (rabbits, quail or partridges, grouse, woodcock, reedbirds,
ortolan or rail, and summer ducks); Frederick, $15 (rabbits, partridges, pheasants,
wild turkeys, woodcock, and ducks); Montgomery, $15 (squirrels, rabbits, par-
tridges, pheasants, wild turkeys, woodcock, and ducks); Prince George, $20 (rab-
bits, partridges, pheasants, and woodcock); Washington, $10 (hunting or fishing in
county, except on Potomac River, not applicable to taxpayers or residents of Mary-
land or District of Columbia); Wicomico, $10 (all game).
1904, Nonresident landowners and guests of resident landowners allowed to hunt
in Anne Arundel County; special Patuxent River $10 license required of nonresi-
dents hunting birds (members of certain hunting clubs exempt), and $2.50 pusher's
license required of residents of State; nonresident license in Baltimore County
extended to cover jacksnipe and fee reduced to $5 (photograph of holder required
on license). Nonresident county licenses as follows: Allegany, $10 (all game) ; Somer-
set, $10 (squirrels, rabbits, muskrats, quail or partridges, doves, woodcock, ducks,
and geese) ; resident county license, Somerset, $1.
StJMMAftY 0^ UdfiKSIJ LMlStATWl^. SI
iCichigan.— 1895, $25 nonresident license, 50-cent resident license for hunting deer;
1897, resident license fee increased to 75 cents*
Minnesota. — 1896, $25 license required of citizens of States having restrictions
against nonresident huiiters; 1899, $25 nonresident license and 25=cent resident
license for big game; 1903} $25 nonresident license foi* big game, $10 nonresident
license for small game; resideiit license extended to cover all game animals and fee
increased to $1; license law of 1895 repealed.
Missouri. — 1877, Nonresidents prohibited from hunting game for sale or export;
1879, nonresidents prohibited from all hunting in the State.
Montana. 1901, $25 big-game license and $15 bird license required of nonresidents
who pay no taxes in the State.
Nebraska. — 1901, $10 nonresident license, $1 resident license (not required in
county of domicile).
New Hampshire. — 1903, $10 nonresident deer license.
New Jersey. — 1873, $5 nonresident license for hunting in Atlantic, Camden, Cape
May, Cumberland, Gloucester, or Salem counties; 1896, license law repealed; 1878,
nonresidents prohibited from hunting in the State except in compliance with the
by-laws of the game protection societies; 1902, $10 nonresident license for any game
except waterfowl, snipe, and mud hens.
New York. — 1884, $10 nonresident license for hunting on Staten Island; 1892,
license law repealed; 1900, nonresident taking fish or game on fresh waters bounding
State subject to same restrictions as citizen of New York in State of nonresident;
1902, nonresidents subject to license restrictions imposed by their own States on non-
residents; 1903, license fee fixed by commissioner in case of nonresidents from States
without license laws.
North Carolina. — 1883, Nonresidents prohibited from shooting wild fowl from float-
ing blinds or batteries in Currituck and Dare counties; 1896, $25 nonresident license
for shooting on Dare County ducking grounds; 1897, nonresidents prohibited from
hunting birds in Camden County; 1899, $25 nonresident license for clubhouses in
Dare County; 1903, $10 nonresident license ($20 in Cabarrus County).
North Dakota. — 1896, $25 nonresident license and 50 cents resident license (land-
owners hunting on their own property exempt, and nonresidents cultivating quarter
section of land need only resident license); 1897, resident license fee increased to 75
cents, and nonresident owners of cultivated lands required to secure resident licenses;
1899, residents under J6 exempt.
Ohio. — 1902, $25 nonresident license; 1904, fee reduced to $15.
Oregon. — 1901» $10 nonresident market-hunting license.
Pennsylvania. — 1901, $10 nonresident license (landowners exempt); 1903, same
license required of unnaturalized foreign-born residents.
Sonth Carolina. — 1884, $25 license for each nonresident hand employed by nonresi-
dents hunting ducks in Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, and Georgetown
counties; 1886, license modified to add $25 fee for pursuit of the business; 1888,
license fee increased to $500 and $100 additional fee for each nonresident employed
by licensee; 1892, $25 nonresident license for hunting in Beaufort County; market-
hunting license extended to Horry County; 1893, $25 nonresident county license
extended to rest of State (persons hunting on their own land exempt); 1902,
repealed by omission from code.
Sonth Dakota. — 1899, $10 nonresident county license; 1901, $25 nonresident and $1
resident county licenses, for big game.
Tennessee. — 1877, Nonresidents of Lake and Obion counties prohibited from killing
wild fowl for market on Reelfoot Lake; 1879, market hunting prohibited in 13
counties; 1889, nonresidents of the county prohibited from market hunting in certain
counties and from all hunting in others; nonresidents of the State prohibited from
killing wild fowl on Reelfoot Lake; 1897, nonresidents of Grundy and Van Buren
22 HUNTING LICENSES.
counties prohibited from killing deer, quail, and wild turkey in these counties; 1901,
similar law for Bledsoe County; 1903, $25 market-hunting license and nonresident
license with same fee as resident of Tennessee is required to pay in State of applicant.
Utah. — 1903, $10 nonresident gun license.
Virginia. — 1886, Nonresidents prohibited from killing wild fowl from skiffs or sink
boxes in Fairfax, Henrico, King George, Prince William, and Stafford counties;
1891, nonresidents prohibited from killing wild fowl on lands below head of tide
water, except in Accomac and Northampton counties; 1894, nonresidents, except
members of the Eastern Shore Game Protective Association, prohibited from killing
wild fowl in Accomac and Northampton counties; 1900, $10 nonresident county
license for deer and upland game birds in Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt,
Highland, and Rockbridge counties; 1903, $10 nonresident license (children and
guests of resident landowners exempt under certain conditions).
Washington. — 1901, $10 nonresident county license and $1 resident county license
(persons under 16 exempt, and privileges of resident license extended to citizens of
Idaho and Oregon) ; 1903, uniform $1 county license for residents and nonresidents.
West Virginia. — 1899, $25 nonresident county license; 1903, $15 nonresident State
license.
Wisconsin. — 1897, $30 nonresident deer license, $1 resident deer license; 1899, non-
resident deer license fee reduced to $25, $10 nonresident license for other game, $1
resident license for all game.
Wyoming. — 1886, Nonresidents prohibited from hunting game animals; 1896, $20
nonresident county license for big game; 1899, fee increased to $40; $1 resident gun
license for hunting big game outside county of residence; 1903, nonresident license fee
increased to $50.
British Columbia. — 1890, $50 nonresident license for big game (members of army,
navy, and Canadian militia exempt).
Manitoba. — 1890, $25 nonresident license.
New Brnnswick. — 1878, $20 nonresident license (fee $5 for.ofl&cer of army orsnavy);
1897, $20 nonresident, $2 resident licenses for moose or caribou, nonresidents required
to give $100 bond, with two resident sureties; 1900, fee for nonresident license for
hunting moose and caribou increased to $30; $30 nonresident license for hunting in
Westmoreland County; 1903, 25 cent resident license for hunting in Westmoreland
County.
Newfoundland. — 1889, $100 nonresident caribou license (offigers of British war ships
stationed on coast for fisheries' protection exempt) ; 1899, caribou license fees reduced
as follows: $40 for 2 stags and 1 doe, $50 for 3 stags and 1 doe, $80 for 5 stags and 2
does; 1902, $100 nonresident license permitting killing of 3 stag caribou; 1903, fee
reduced to $50.
Northwest Territories. — 1893, $5 nonresident license for big game or birds (five-day
licenses free to guests of residents); 1898, nonresident license for all protected game
increased to $15, guest license abolished; 1899, $1 five-day license for hunting by
nonresident guest of resident, $15 nonresident license for calendar year (all big game
and birds); 1903, $25 nonresident license for all game and $15 nonresident license
for birds.
Nova Scotia.— 1884, $30 nonresident moose license and $10 nonresident bird license
($5 fee for officers of army and navy, members of Game Protection Society exempt);
1896, $30 nonresident license for big game, $10 nonresident license for birds, hares,
and rabbits ($5 fee restricted to officers stationed at Halifax, employees of Provincial
or Canadian government, persons formerly domiciled in Nova Scotia, and nonresi-
dents paying $20 real-estate tax exempt) ; 1902, big game license modified to cover
all game and fee increased to $40; 1904, special $30 nonresident license required for
SUMMARY OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 23
Ontario. — 1888, $10 nonresident license for deer (shareholders of incorporated
company hunting on lands of company exempt); 1892, $25 nonresident license for
big game or birds; JL896, $2 resident license for deer; 1900, $5 resident license for
moose, reindeer, or caribou.
Quebec— 1882, $20 nonresident license; 1884, residents of Ontario exempted and
lieutenant-governor in council empowered to grant hunting permits at lower rate or
gratuitously; 1887, $5 license permitting residents to kill 5 caribou and 5 deer above
regular limit, $10 fee to members of incorporated hunting and fishing clubs; 1895,
number of extra caribou and deer allowed under $5 license reduced to 3; nonresident
licenses as follows: $30, all game; $25, big game and fur-bearing animals; $20, game
birds; $10, game birds in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; half rates for members of incor-
porated fish and game clubs; 1897, nonresident license fees fixed by lieutenant-
governor in council, lower rates for members of incorporated fish and game clubs
leasing hunting reserves.
DETAILS OF LICENSES.
The various matters connected with the issue of licenses may be con-
veniently considered under four heads — forms of licenses, fees, details
of issue, and exemptions or privileges.
FORMS OF LICENSES.
It is interesting to note the development in the form of the license.
Some States, like Delaware, Florida, and North Dakota, still issue a
simple license to hunt or kill game. Others, like New Hampshire, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania, have adopted forms which, to prevent trans-
fer, contain a description of the holder. Illinois in 1901 went a step
further and required that the owner's photograph appear on the
license. After two years' trial this feature was discontinued, but
simultaneously with its abandonment by Illinois it was adopted by
Indiana (see PI. Ill), and in 1904 by Baltimore County, Md. New
Brunswick in 189Y required the licensee to give a $100 bond with two
resident sureties.
The most complete form of license is the coupon license, (see PI. VI),
first devised by Michigan in 1897, and since adopted by Colorado.
Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is designed
to allow shipment of a certain specified quantity of fish or game by the
holder, and at the same time to maintain a check on such shipments.
Each license is provided with a number of coupons corresponding to
the number of deer or other game which may be lawfully shipped,
and one of these coupons must be attached to each head, carcass, or
skin, before shipment. Several improvements have been made devel-
oping slightly differing forms, but the best is probably that in use in
Minnesota. This license contains an abstract of the law, is mounted
on cloth and is arranged to fold conveniently so that it can be carried
in the pocket without injury, and each coupon is provided with a
metal eyelet to facilitate attachment to the game (see PI. IV).
A form of nonresident license reciprocal in nature has been adopted
in a few States. It originated in Minnesota in 1895, and was adopted
with some modifications by New York in 1900-1902, Tennessee in 1903,
and Kentucky in 1904, but has now been abandoned by Minnesota and
further modified by New York. As originally enacted in Minnesota
it was a simple $25 nonresident license but applicable only to " citizens
of such States as have restrictive laws against nonresident hunters."
New York changed the scheme so as to make the law general, but pro-
vided that the fee should be the same as that charged nonresidents in
the applicant's State. In 1903 it modified the law so as to empower
the forest, fish, and game commissioner to fix a fee for licensees from
24
Bull. 19, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Plate III.
Photograph
and Description of Licensee
under Hunting License
No
DESCRIPTION,' Age^
height ftet
-.ytars;
. inthet;
weight pounds; complexion
color of hair^ / color of
*y*' ■ ; / distinctive
marks^
^
',i "»
e
-^
-3 ^-
%. ^
»
3
■^
■^ ■«
«»
"^
^ a
"5
o
•^ s
•2
"^ -
--
-4.
^
I -J
■5 -.
.-4
^
"* 5
'O
c
-r
! 1
:: 1
Q>
-^
^ !
o
1
^
^ 1
•*«*
?
=^ i
-J
>
V
1 !
!
50
^
a -1
X
Q)
2
" 1
1
i»«
^
1
1
^ H 1
o
3
S 1 ^
^ 1
^
o
w
v^
>
u
?■
;S
: 1 1
%
i
%)
11
.
Is
-2
- i.
4 ^
1
s
><»
V 1.
1
^
lit
i
t;
^11
i
The Photograph License of Indiana, 1903.
5 71 by 9i inches, printed on buff cardboard, and folded for mailing or carrying in the pocket.
States which have no fees for nonresident licenses. Tennessee and
Kentucky adopted the general plan of the New York law of 1902*
The reciprocal license is experimental and has been adopted only J n
States which have not yet established a regular license, o where the
usual form of license has proved unsuccessful. At first sight it seems
to have much in its favor, since it taxes only hunters from States
where the nonresident license system is in force, but the requirement
is very difiicult of enforcement and its inequalities are likely to arouse
resentment. The Minnesota law, which was one of the first in the
country providing for general licenses, proved a failure, and thus far
the New York law has been a dead letter. Kentucky apparently adopted
the plan chiefly because its own first high-license law was not a success,
while the Tennessee law was proving more effective. Tennessee is, in
fact, the only State in which this method seems to have accomplished
its purpose. If each State had a single fixed rate it might be possible
to carry out the idea with some degree of success, but when the appli-
cant is a resident of a State where separate rates are in force for large
and small game, as in Idaho, Minnesota, (yolomdo, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, it is not easy to do so; and when
he resides in a State like Maryland, where the license fee varies with each
county, it is difficult to determine what rate he should be charged. The
question is still further complicated by exemptions allowed landowners,
as in North Dakota, or guests, as in Maryland and Virginia. Further-
more, it is not clear what is expected of a nonresident from New York
hunting in Kentucky or Tennessee, or vice versa. Apart from these
administrative difficulties the law is likely to create friction in a rigid
enforcement of its provisions. Two residents from Maryland, for
example, hunting in the Adirondacks might think it unfair that one
should be charged $5 and the other $25 because the first happened
to be a resident of Dorchester County and the second of Garrett
County; and it would be equally irritating to two residents of Mary-
land hunting on the same estate in Tennessee by invitation of the
owner if one, being from Washington County, should have the privi-
lege without charge, while the other, being from Garrett County,
should have to pay a fee of $25, because Washington County exempts
from the license laws nonresidents hunting by invitation on their host's
land, while Garrett County makes no such exemption.
FEES.
The fees charged for nonresident lic^enses have varied from $1 to
§500, those for resident licenses from 25 cents to $5. One dollar is the
present rate charged residents and nonresidents alike in Washington «
(see PI. VII), and $500 — probably the highest game license fee in the
« Although Washington, in 1903, actually established the first low uniform fee for
residents and nonresidents in the United States, the same principle was advocated
eight years earlier in Illinois in a bi41 which failed to pass the legislature in 1895.
(See footnote, p. 17).
26
HUNTING LICENSES.
world — that formerly required for a nonresident market-hunting
license in South Carolina. Other high licenses are those for caribou
in Newfoundland, $100, in 1889 and 1902, but now reduced to $50,
and the present $50 license fees for big game in British Columbia
and Wyoming (see PI. VIl). Apparently the rate is often fixed
without regard to the kind of game which the State has to offer, and
is influenced more or less by the fees prevailing in neighboring States.
Thus Indiana and Ohio, which have no big game, require nonresi-
dents to pay $25, the same rate which is required in Idaho, and
Montana, where deer, elk, goats, and other big game may be obtained.
Maine, which has excellent big game hunting, exacts but $15, and
Utah but $10, while South Carolina, which offers little beside game
birds, until recently required $25, and made the license good only
in the county in which it was issued. Maine and New Brunswick
both have moose and deer and offer much the same opportunity for
hunting, but the fee in New Brunswick is $30, or exactly twice that
in Maine. The tendency at the present time seems to be in the direc-
tion of a license of $25 for big game and $10 for game birds, both
good throughout the State. The only States in which county licenses
still prevail are Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, South Dakota, and
Washington. In Colorado they are also issued to nonresidents hunt-
ing birds.
DETAILS OF ISSUE.
The following table shows the States that require nonresident
licenses, the amounts of the fees, the oflScials from whom licenses are
obtainable, the disposition of the fees, and the limitations as to the
amount of game that may be exported.
Details of Nonresident Licenses for hunting game,<^
state.
Fee.
By whom issued.
Disposition of fee.
Export limit; remarks.
Arkansas
Nonresidents not per-
mitted to hunt.
Colorado
$25(all game) .
Commissioner o f
Game protection .
Export allowed under
game.
permit.
91 per day
(birds).
....do
do
County license for birds,
$2 first day.
Delaware
96 first year,
$2 thereafter.
Delaware Game
do
Export of rabbits, quail,
partridges, woodcock.
Protective Asso-
ciation.
robins, Wilson snipe
prohibited.
Florida^
$10
Clerk county cir-
cuit court.
do
Export of deer, quail,
wild turkeys prohib-
ited. County license.
Georgia
$25
County ordinary . . .
County treasury . .
County market hunting
license. Export of
quail prohibited.
a For exemptions see pp. 30-32. b License not applicable to counties having special game laws.
DETAILS OF ISSUE*
Details of Nonresident Licenses for hunting game — Continued.
27
State.
Fee.
Hawaii (Oahu) .
Idaho
$25(all game)
Illinois..
Indiana .
Iowa .
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine (moose and
deer).
Maryland.
«5 (birds).
$15.
«25.
$10.
By whom issued. Disposition of fee,
Treasurer ,
State warden or
deputy, justice
of the peace.
do
Export limit; remarks.
2 deer, 1 ibex, 1 goat, 1
sheep, 1 elk per season.
(«)
Export of birds pro-
hibited.
County clerk do 60 birds.
Clerk of circuit do 24 birds.
court of county. | I
County auditor do I 25 of all game. County
I license.
County clerk State treasury
Michigan . .
Minnesota .
$10 Sheriff of parish. . . .
$15.
$5 (ducks
and shore
birds). 6
$4.50-«25
Miasouri .
Montana .
Nebraska.
$25 (deer) ....
$25( big game)
$10 (birds).
Commissioners o f
inland fisheries
and game.
....do
Clerk of circuit
court.
County clerk
Board of game and
fish commission-
ers.
$25 (big game);
$15 (birds) .
$10.
New Hami)shire. .
New Jersey
$10 (deer) .
New York .
North Carolina...
North Dakota.
Ohio
$10.,
(«)
$10..
$26.,
$15..
State game and fish
warden.
Game and fish com-
missioner.
Fish and game com-
missioner.
County clerk
Game protection
do
.do.
Schools, roads, or
general county
expenses.
Game protection .
do
Game protection
Schools.
Game protection
Forest, fish, and
game commis-
sioner.
Clerk superior
court.
County auditor
County clerk
o Rate of State of nonresident.
^In Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, and Waldo counties, and the townships of Brunswick, Freeport,
and Harpswell in Cumberland County.
<^ 20 per cent State treasury, 70 per cent game protection, 10 per cent county auditor.
.do.
State treasury .
Game protection
Game protection
Export prohibited.
1 deer, 12 birds.
1 moose, 2 deer per sea-
son.
Separate county laws,
with varying export
provisions.
Export prohibited.
2 deer, 1 moose, 1 cari-
bou, 26 birds.
Nonresidents not per-
mitted to hunt.
6 deer, 2 elk, 6 goats per
season; 20 grouse, prai-
rie chickens, fool hens,
pheasants, sage hens,
partridges, doves per
day.
50 birds.
2 deer. Export of birds
prohibited.
Export of upland game,
except wild turkeys,
prohibited. License
not required for water-
fowl, snipe, or mud
hens.
Export prohibited.
50 quail.
Export prohibited.
60 of all game.
iatJOTlKG LICENSfiS.
Details of Nonresident Licenses for hunting game — Continued.
state.
Tee.
By whom issued.
Disposition of fee.
Export limit; remarks.
Oregon i.
$10....:.;.....
Game and forestry
wafdeh.
State treasury ....
Market hunting. Ex-
poti prohibited, ex-
cept that Washington
hunter may take one
day's bag.
Penusyl vanift
$10
County treasurer. . .
50 per cent county
treasury; 50 per
Export prohibited.
cent game pro-
tection.
South Dakota
$26 (big game);
do
Game protection .
3 deer, 1 elk, 1 buflfalo,
1 sheep, 15 birds.
County license. Li-
censee must be in
charge of qualified
guide.
$10 (birds)....
do
do
State license.
Tennessee
$10
State game warden .
State treasury (?) .
State treasury
Utah
County fish and
Export prohibited.
game warden.
Virginia
$10
County clerk
Game protection .
1 deer, 50 quail, 10 pheas-
ants or grouse, 3 wild
turkeys, 30 water fowl.
25 each or 100 in all
of plover, snipe, sand-
pipers, willets, tat-
lers, and curlews.
Washington
61
County auditor
. Game protection .
Export prohibited, ex-
cept that Oregon hun-
ter may take 1 day's
bag. County license.
West Virginia
$15
State game warden .
State treasury
Export prohibited of
deer, quail, ruffed
grouse, pheasants.
and wild turkeys.
Wisconsin
$26 (all game);
$10 (small
Secretary of state . .
Game protection .
2 deer, 2 rabbits, 2 .squir-
rels, 50 birds.
game).
Wyoming
$50
Justice of the peace .
do
2 deer, 2 elk, 2 antelope,
1 sheep, 1 goat. Li-
censee must employ
guide.
British Columbia..
$50
Any Government
10 deer, 2 elk, 2 moose,
agent.
5 caribou, 5 goats, 5
sheep, under license.
No birds.
Manitoba
$25
Minister of agri-
culture and im-
Export prohibited.
migration.
New Brunswicli . . .
$30 (moose
andearibou).
Surveyor-general ,
chief game com-
missioner, any
game warden.
Game protection .
1 moose, 1 earilx>u.
$30 (deer and
game birds).
do
2 deer. License required
only in Westmoreland
County.
a Kate of State of nonresidents.
DETAILS OF ISSUE.
Details of Nonresident Licenses for hunting game — Continued.
29
State.
Fee.
By whom issued.
Disposition of fee.
Export limit; remarks.
Newfoundland
$50 (caribou).
Minister of marine
and fisheries, sti-
pendiary magis-
trate, justice of
the peace.
Game protection .
3 caribou, under license
and permit.
Northwest Terri-
825 fall erame):
Game guardian ....
Trophies of 3 deer, 3
tories.
«15 (birds).
elk, 3 moose, 3 caribou
(2 of each in South-
eastern Assiniboia).
Nova Scotia
$40 (tfll
game);
$30(moose);
$10 (birds,
hares, and
rabbits).
Provincial secre-
tary, county
clerk, chief game
warden.
Game protection .
2 moose.
Ontario
$26
Chief warden
do
2 deer, 1 moose, 1 cari-
bou, 100 ducks.
Quebec ^
$25 (general
Commissioner of
Separate license re-
quired for shooting
license); $20
lands, forests,
(animals);
and fisheries.
game birds in Gulf of
$10 (birds);
St. Lawrence.
$1.50 a day
(birds).
The corresponding details for resident licenses are shown in the
following table:
Details of Resident Licenses for hunting game.
State.
Fee.
By whom issued.
Disposition of fees.
25 cents to clerk,
25 cents county
fund, 50 cents
game fund.
Remarks.
Colorado
$1.00
6.00
1.00
1.00
Commissioner or
county clerk.
Treasurer
Expires Dec. 31.
Good for one year from
date of issue.
Expires Feb. 15.
Expires June 1; not re-
quired of one hunting
on land which he
Hawaii (Oahu)
Idaho
State warden, jus-
tice of peace.
City, village, or
county clerk.
Game protection .
do
Illinois
Indiana
1.00
1.00
.75
$1.00
Game commissioner
County clerk
do
do
owns or occupies.
Required for waterfowl,
Oct. 1 to Nov. 10.
Somerset County.
Deer only.
Big game only; expires
Dec. 31.
Maryland
Schools.
25 cents to clerk,
25 cents to State
warden service,
25cents to coun-
ty warden serv-
ice.
Game protection .
Michigan
Minnesota
County auditor ....
30 HUNTING LICENSES.
Details of Resident Licenses for hunting game — Continued.
State.
Fee.
By whom issued.
Disposition of fees.
Remarks.
Nebraska
1.00
Game commissioner
Schools
Necessary outside coun-
ty of residence; ex-
pires Dec. 31.
North Dakota
.75
County auditor....
20 per cent to gen-
eral fund, 10 per
cent to county
auditor, 70 per
cent to wardens.
Not required by citizen
hunting on his own
land; expires Dec. 31.
South Dakota
1.00
Ctounty treasurer...
Game protection .
Big game only; county
license; licensee must
be in charge of quali-
fied guide.
Washington
Wisconsin
1.00
County auditor
.... do .
Countv license
1.00
County clerk
. Warden fund
Wyoming
1.00
Payment ward-
Big game; not required
in county of residence;
ens and attor-
neys.
expires Dec. 31.
J 2.00
I .25
[Chief game com-
1
[Moose and caribou.
New Brunswick...
"j missioner, any
iGame protection .
jDeer and game birds in
[ game warden.
\ Westmoreland County.
f 5.00
t 2.00
5.00
Chief warden
do
Moose and caribou.
Ontario
do . ...
.do
Deer.
Quebec
Commissioner o f
3 deer and 3 caribou in
lands, forests,
excess of bag limit.
and fisheries.
EXEMPTIONS.
One of the chief objections to nonresident license laws, and one of
the features which usually causes the greatest hardship, is that requir-
ing nonresidents who own land within the State to secure licenses.
To meet this difficulty several States have made special exceptions
in their laws. These exceptions merit mention with some detail to
show the various solutions of the question which have been proposed.
Montana exempts taxpayers, and New Hampshire those who own
real estate within the State to the value of $500. New Jersey excepts
nonresident owners of freehold estates and their sons, and North Dakota
allows nonresidents owning or cultivating quarter sections of land to
take out resident licenses in the county where the land is situated.
Pennsylvania, in the act of 1901, made an exception in favor of owners
of real estate, but repealed the provision in 1903. South Carolina (law
no longer in force) and Tennessee and West Virginia make exceptions
in favor of landowners hunting on their own property. Tennessee
makes a further exemption in the case of nonresidents who pay $100 in
taxes in the State, and Virginia allows nonresident children and guests
of resident landowners to hunt on the lands of their parents or hosts
if the guest is accompanied by his host or a member of his family and
the host receives no compensation, directly or indirectly.
Bull. 19, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Plate IV.
3=^
?5
H
ajx
r
2^
o
fC ^
m
dc
z
o'!l
m
50 ?
CO
ao
i^
r
r
X ft
z
o
3-^
fo
II
>
z
Ss
n
ag
2
J3 -
z
^'?;
z
n-.a
m
^
S2
O
H
c s
>
3 3
Ml
tot
.CO ~
o
CD "•
O
r '^ '-' tf«
^^ »^ r2 "*
^ o
^
•D 1^ C^
2 O
5 if
<> zi
n
I 3
" " -4
5
5
c£) *
rs
■ iD »
~
>CD "
O
5"
■ a
:;•
O
IjO ;«
i
CO -a
1
<jj:€
I
EXEMPTIONS. 31
In Maryland special exceptions regarding landowners prevail in
some of the counties. Dorchester County excepts nonresident land-
owners or their relatives, and relatives or connections by marriage of
residents; Kent exempts nonresidents owning lands, and tenants in
lawful possession of real estate; and under an act passed in 1904 regu-
lating hunting on the Patuxent River those persons are considered
bona tide residents of the State that belong to any incorporated hunt-
ing club whose membership does not exceed 30, and which owns or
leases real estate within a mile of the river, and has improved its
property by a club-house.
Other exceptions are based on other considerations. Idaho requires
no license from women, and prohibits children under 12 from obtain-
ing licenses. Wyoming excepts bona fide minors; North Dakota,
children under 16 if they have the written consent of their parents or
guardians to hunt; and Washington, in the law of 1901, excepted
boys under 16, a provision which caused the law to be declared uncon-
stitutional by the circuit court of Spokane County. Washington
County, Md., makes the provision of its license law inapplicable to
hunting along the Potomac River, and exempts residents of the District
of Columbia as well as Maryland.
Illinois inserted a provision in its law permitting nonresidents to
hunt without a license on the lands of another by invitation. This
proviso was declared void by the attornej'^-general of the State, but
merely because of ambiguity, owing to its location in the law. A
similar exemption of guests of residents or landowners is in force in
many counties of Maryland, and visiting sportsmen often secure invi-
tations instead of licenses.^ Kent County, Md., issues licenses at one-
third the regular rate to nonresidents invited by landowners.
In some of the Canadian provinces exceptions are made in favor of
army and navy oflScers. For example, British Columbia does not
require licenses of officers of the army and navy or of the Canadian
militia in actual service, Newfoundland allows officers of British war
vessels stationed on the coast for the protection of fisheries to employ
unlicensed guides and to hunt caribou without license, and Nova Scotia
excepts officers stationed at Halifax, provided they are members of the
Game and Inland Fishery Protection Society.
Some of these exemptions have practically nullified the laws or made
them very difficult of enforcement. Thus it was found in Pennsyl-
vania that nonresidents would purchase a few acres of wild land to
secure immunity from the license law, and the secretary of the game
commission of that State advised in his report for 1902 (p. 5) that the
<^ Guests of landowners require no licenses in any of the counties of the State
except Allegany, Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, Somerset, Talbot, and
Worcester,
32 HUISTTNG LICENSES.
nonresident hunter should be required to pay the license fee, as in
adjoining States, regardless of the ownership of property.
The North Dakota exemption in favor of nonresidents owning or
cultivating a quarter section of land has been made use of to evade the
payment of the license fee. The game warden of the second district
of this State says:
I believe that all nonresident hunters should be required to pay the fuH fee of ?25,
and see no good reason why an exception should be made in favor of those who are
the owners of land in the state. A fraudulent use, I think, is frequently made of this
latter clause, as it is an easy matter to temporarily transfer the title of land in order
to evade the payment of $25, for a permit. It would only be fair in case all non-
residents are charged the |25 fee if they were granted some privileges in regard to
shipping game out of the state.
Of the Wyoming provision exempting from the payment of the
resident license fee citizens hunting in their own counties, the State
game warden says in his report for 1903 (pp. 3^):
The law as it stands is difficult to enforce, produces but little revenue and is use-
less as a means of identification.
With a nonresident gun license of fifty dollars, the temptation is strong for unscru-
pulous hunters to sneak in from adjoining States and pose as citizens of Wyoming;
and an officer must rely upon his acquaintance with the people of his own county for
detection of such fraud.
Whatever may be said of the injustice of requiring nonresidents to
take out licenses to hunt on their own property or on the lands of a
club to which they may belong, the contention that such a provision
is unconstitutional in depriving a person of his property has not been
sustained in the single case which has been tried in the higher courts.
{In re Eberle, see p. 48.)
Another provision frequently regarded as an unnecessary hardship
is that even after securing a license nonresidents are sometimes pro-
hibited from carrying home any of the game which they secure. Such
restrictions are in force in Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West
Virginia, and also in Manitoba. In other States which issue nonresi-
dent licenses an exemption in the nonexport law allows the holder to
take with him out of the State a certain amount of game for his own
use, usually on condition that it shall be carried openly. Some such
provision seems no more than just when the State exacts a fee of from
$5 to $50 for the privilege of securing game, which, in some cases at
least, can not be fully enjoyed unless the owner can take it home.
The absence of such a provision and the failure to permit non-
resident landowners to hunt on their own property account for most
of the irritation aroused by nonresident license laws. The shipping
privilege can be easily arranged and has already been recognized by
most States. The other obstacle is not so easily overcome, and a satis-
factory solution has joot as yet been devised.
OBJECTS OF HTTNTING LICENSES.
NONRESIDENT LICENSES.
The objects of nonresident licenses, although variously stated, may
be practically reduced to two: (1) To restrict hunting, especially on
the part of those who are not citizens of the State^ and (2) to raise
funds for game protection by requiring nonresidents to contribute to
the expense of preserving the game. The annoyances occasioned by
hunting on the part of irresponsible persons who are not citizens of
the State are by no means peculiar to the present day. They were
evidently experienced by the early colonists, as shown by the preamble
of the North Carolina law of 1768, in which the reasons for discrimi-
nating against nonresidents are quaintly expressed as follows:
Whereas, by the before recited act, [Laws of 1745, Chap. Ill], persons who have
no settled habitation, or not tending 5000 cornhills are prohibited froni hunting,
under the penalty of five pounds and forfeiture of his gun; which by experience has
been found not to answer the purposes intended by the said act; many disorderly
and dissolute persons having no habitation of their own, still continue to hunt on
the King's waste and the lands of other persons, and kill deer, and leave the car-
casses in the woods, by which means the wolves, bears and other vermin, are fed
and raised; to the great damage of many of the inhabitants of this Province; and the
fines being difficult of recovery, by means of persons having no property of their
own, assembling in great numbers and camping in the woods, and kill deer, bum
and destroy the range, burn fences and comnii)b many other injuries to the inhabi-
tants of this Province; and associate for the mutual protection and defence of each
other, against any person or persons who shall attempt to execute any precept on any
of them: * * *
The necessity for restricting hunting is now greater in some States
than in others, particularly in those which are likely to be overrun
with hunters from large cities in adjoining States. New Jersey affords
a striking example of this kind. A State of comparatively small area,
with New York City on her northern border and Philadelphia on her
southwestern border, her stock of game is peculiarly subject to deple-
tion by hunters from these cities, and a nonresident license fee affords
a means of preventing many of them from hunting in the adjoining
counties within her borders. The fact that Pennsylvania, Delaware,
and other States had adopted the license system induced New Jersey
to follow their example. The reason for this course was thus
expressed in the preamble to the act of 1902 (Laws of 1902, chap. 263):
Whereas, Sister states have, by legislation, required all non-residents (including
residents of the state of New Jersey) to take out licenses before hunting or gunning
in such states, respectively, and imposed license fees therefor and provided for the
punishment for such as should violate the provisions of such acts; now, therefore,
-^« U enacted by the State and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
!• Every non-resident of this state shall be required to take out a license before he
^U begin hunting or gunning in this state, ♦ * *
6095— No. 10 4- 3 33
34 HUNTING LICENSES.
Pennsylvania in 1903 further developed the protection idea by
requiring not only every nbnresident, but also every unnaturalized
foreign-born resident of the Commonwealth to take out a license from
the treasurer of the county in which he proposed to hunt, for which
he must pay a fee of $10. (Acts of 1903, p. 178.) This provision,
which has recently been adopted by Louisiana, seems to offer a prac-
tical solution of the problem of controlling the ever increasing num-
ber of foreigners of certain classes who destroy birds and game of all
kinds in the neighborhood of large cities despite laws and wardens.
The principle on which the nonresident license is founded, besides the
general one of protection of the game from irresponsible and uniden-
tifiable hunters on which all hunting licenses are based, is the preser-
vation of the benefits of residence within a community for the use of
its own citizens. The game of a State is held to belong to the people
of the State and is preserved primarily for their own use. When,
therefore, nonresidents desire to enjoy the privileges of residents they
are required to pay a reasonable fee for such concession on the part
of the State. This requirement is the one which is considered more
important by some States. Thus Illinois in the game law of 1901,
section 26, declares:
For the purpose of increasing the game-protection fund, and preventing unauthor-
ized persons from killing game and birds, no person, not a resident of the State of
Illinois, shall at any time hunt, pursue or kill, with gun, any of the wild animals,
fowls or birds that are protected during any part of the year without first having
procured a license so to do, * * *
In several States, notably Maine, North Carolina, Washington,
and Wyoming, the State depends largely upon the income from this
source for game protection; in most States although the returns are
considerable they do not by any means constitute the chief source of
income for the game-protection fund. Efforts have been made to
ascertain the income derived from licenses in the several States, as
well as in the Provinces of Canada, for the years 1902 and 1903.
DiflSculty, however, has been encountered in obtaining satisfactory
statistics owing chiefly to the different methods of issuing licenses and
the fact that in some States the issue is intrusted to local officers, so
that the full returns for the State are practically inaccessible. The
following table shows the number of licenses and amount of fees
received therefor in 22 States and 6 Provinces during the past two
years. In several States license laws were not in force in 1902, and
in others statistics for 1902 are not available, although they have been
furnished for 1903.«
a The figures for Washington are inseparable from those for resident licenses and are given in the
table on p. 88. The States and Provinces from which no returns were received are: New York,
Pennsylvania, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, South Dakota, Oregon, Hawaii, British Colombia, and
Quebec. In New York no licenses were issued, and in Oregon the law requires none except for
market hunting by nonresidents. The receipts were probably small in all the other States except
possibly in South Dakota.
OBJECTS OF KONBE8IDENT LICEN8BS.
35
Nonresident Licenses issued in 19C2 and 190S.
State.
Rate.
Colorado .
rS25.00
1^
Delaware.
Idaho .
5.00
2.00
».00
>.00
Illinois I 10.00
Kentucky ! 25.00
Maine I 15.00
Maryland
I 25.C
1 5.C
Caroline
Cecil
Dorchester . . .
Howard
Kent
Montgomery ,
Michigan
Minnesota .
Montana .
Nebraska
New Hampshire- . .
New Jersey
North Carolina
North Dakota .
Ohio
Tennessee .
4.60
5.00
6.00
7.50
5.00
15.00
25.00
25.00
10.00
25.00
15.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
25.00
26.00
25.00
1902.
No. Amount.
Utah
Virginia &
West Virginia .
Wisconsin .
Wyoming
Manitoba
New Brunswick .
Newfoundland . .
Northwest Ter. . .
Nova Scotia .
Ontario
10.00
10.00
15.00
25.00
10.00
50.00
25.00
30.00
100.00
15.00
40.00
^ 10.00
25.00
(«)
Total
amount.
1903.
No.
8725.00
21.00
$791.00 $791.00 815 ! 1,027.00
5,985.00
100.00
9.00
80.00
(«)
5,985.00
100.00
(«)
151.50
l{ 20
1 1 247
250
1,697
22.50
10.00
30.00
1,325.00
600.00
1,235.00
3,760.00
26,455.00
1,325.00
825.00
145.00
640.00
(«)
970.00 '
640.00
(«) I («)
375.00
(«)
(«)
7,325.00
2,600.00
375.00
(«)
(«)
(«)
900.00
8, 610. 00
4,600.00
285.00
1,320.00
190.00
5,000.00
9,925.00
900.00
8,610.00
4,600.00
285.00
1,510.00 ,
5,000.00 !
45
131
202
61
11
84
135
301
911
83
40
17
40
254
29
361
298
158
18
259
9.00
70.00
5.00
22.50
26.00
Total
amount.
Remarks.
I $746.00
1,027.00
1,735.00
3,750.00
25,455.00
131.50
1,125.00 j 1,
3,276.00 |.
2,020.00 |J'^'
1,525.00
165.00
840.00
1,350.00
3,010.00
9,110.00
2,075.00
1,000.00
426.00
200.00
125.00
295.00
1,690.00
840.00
1,350.00
3,010.00
9,110.00
is, 075. 00
425.00
326.00
300.00
2,540.00
435.00
9,025.00
2,980.00
7,900.00
760.00
10,140.00
3,600.00
255.00
1,200.00
180.00
6,475.00
300.00
2,540.00
435.00
12,005.00
7,900.00
750.00
10,140.00
3,600.00
255.00
|l,380.00
6,475.00
General license.
Bird license, $1 per
day (12 first day).
Rate in 1903, $16.
4 counties.
Total number, 25 in
1902, 26 in 1903.
First district.
Second district.
Total includes 5
market hunters'
licenses, $125.
All game.
Small game.
Rate in 1903, $60.
«No law in force.
6 Based mainly on a report by L. T. Christian in the Richmond Times-Dispatch of August 21, 1904,
supplemented by a few reports from county clerks. Following are the number of licenses issued in
each county in 1903: Albemarle, 2; Alexandria, 13; Alleghany, 1; Augusta, 4; Amelia, 16; Bath, 4;
Branswick, 6; Bland, 4; Buckingham, 9; Caroline, 18; Charlotte, 2; Culpeper, 2; Dinwiddle, 1; Essex, 7;
Fairfax, 5; Fauquier, 2; Franklin, 2; Frederick, 4; Gloucester, 2; Greensville, 4; Henrico, 8; Isle of
Wight, 1; James City, 2; King William, 10; Louisa, 4; Lunenburg, 6; Middlesex, 13; Montgomery, 1;
New Kent, 3; Nottoway, 2; Orange, 8; Page, 4; Pittsylvania, 2; Prince George, 12; Princess Anne, 44;
Prince William, 1; Richmond, 5; Roanoke, 2; Shenandoah, 1; Smyth, 2; Southampton, 1; Spottsyl-
vania, 1; Stafford, 5, and Sussex, 13. Total, 254. The only counties not heard from are Accomac,
Giles, HanoYer» Meckleabuig> and Powhatan.
36 HUNTING LICENSES.
The foregoing table shows that the number of licenses issued was
as follows: In 1902, 1,572 licenses in 9 States and 640 licenses in 6
Canadian Provinces, or a total of 2,212 licenses in 15 States and Prov-
inces; in 1903, 5,779 licenses in 21 States and 764 licenses in 6 Canadian
Provinces, or a total of 6,543 licenses in 27 States and Provinces.
While the receipts from nonresident licenses in 1903 exceeded those
of the previous year, they ran above f 1,000 in only 14 States and 4
Provinces, and exceeded $5,000 in only 5 States and 2 Provinces.
Maine collected the largest amount ($25,455) and Wisconsin the next
largest ($12,005). The smallest amount was $131, collected in Mary-
land, where licenses were issued in only 5 of the 23 counties.
Investigation of the disposition of the funds will show that in most
cases receipts from licenses are utilized for the protection of game.
Maine, in 1903, provided that the money received from nonresident
licenses should be expended for protection of moose and deer and for
compensation for "actual damage done growing crops by deer." In a
few States, however, the proceeds are turned into the general treas-
ury or the school fund. Thus, in New York, West Virginia, Ken-
tucky, Tennessee, Oregon, and Utah they are covered into the general
treasury, and in Georgia into the county treasury. In Pennsylvania
one-half of the total receipts is paid into the county treasury. In North
Dakota 20 per cent goes into the general treasury, 10 per cen*: is paid
to the county auditor, and 70 per cent is added to the game fund. In
Marj^land (except in a few counties) and Nebraska the receipts are
turned over to the school fund. Again, examining the table from this
standpoint, it will be noticed that the States which turn the money
over to the school fund or to the general treasury are the ones which
show the smallest returns. Thus, in 1903, Maryland collected only $131
and Nebraska $840 for the school fund. Utah collected $300 and West
Virginia |435 for the general treasury. Where the money is not
applied to the protection of game, which is the ultimate source of this
income, less interest seems to be taken in enforcing license laws, and
the license system as a source of income makes but a small showing.
Again, the experience of some States shows that interest is apt to be
lax if the proceeds from the sale of licenses are turned into a general
State fund instead of being retained in the county in which they
accrue, even though such general fund is devoted to the enforcement
of game laws, and it has been suggested as desirable to allow each
county to use for its general expenses at least 50 per cent of the pro-
ceeds, and thus give it a direct financial interest in the amount raised.
RESIDENT LICENSES.
Resident licenses, unlike those issued to nonresidents, are not
intended so much to restrict hunting as to regulate it. The chief uses
they subserve are raising funds for the protection of game and pro-
COMPARISON OF STATISTICS.
37
viding a system of identifying hunters. And by requiring everyone who
hunts to be registered, they may afford indirectly a valuable means of
collecting statistics not otherwise obtainable, concerning the number of
persons hunting in the State, approximately the amount of big game
killed, and the principal hunting places.
With the exception of a small fee allowed to the oflScer issuing the
license, usually prescribed in addition to the regular license fee, the
proceeds from resident licenses are used for the protection of game.
Apparently the only important exceptions are in North Dakota and
Michigan. In North Dakota, but 70 per cent is devoted to game
protection, 10 per cent being paid to the auditor and 20 per cent
to the general treasury of the State. In Michigan 25 cents is allowed
the clerks for issuing the licenses, so that the cost to the State of col-
lecting the fees is 33 per cent of the total resident tax.
The following table shows the number of resident licenses issued in
each State in 1902 and 1903 and the amounts paid therefor:
Resident Licenses issued in 1902 and 1903.^
state.
Rate.
1902.
Rate.
1903.
Remarks.
No.
Amount.
No.
Amount.
Colorado
«1.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.75
1.00
1.00
r .75
I .75
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
5.00
15,184
$16,184.00
Hawaii
$5.00
Idaho
12,370
95,000
12,370.00
95,000.00
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
«0.75
.25
1.00
.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
6.00
18,621
$13,965.75
19,061
8,910
3,744
6,518
5,056
14,295.76
8,910.00
3,744.00
4,888.50
3,792.00
Minnesota
Nebraska
North Dakota
3,348
3,348.00
First district.
South Dakota
Second district; total
$8,680.50.
Washington
14,982
78, 164
299
1,868
153
5,707
14,982.00
78,164.00
299.00
3,716.00
766.00
11,414.00
Wisconsin
72,635
72,635.00
Wyoming
New Brunswick...
Ontario
1,571
150
5.165
3,142.00
750.00
10,330.00
Moose and caribou.
Do.
Quebec
Deer.
«In Maryland special licenses were issued in some of the counties as follows: Anne Arundel, 1902,
11 pushers, $22; 1903, 10 pushers, $20; Cecil, 1902, 24 sink box, $480; 67 sneak boat, $335; 1903, 19 sink box,
^380; 69 sneak boat, $346; Harford, 1902, 40 sink box, $800, 68 sneak boat, $340; 1903, 34 sink box, $680;
51 sneak boat, $255.
COMPARISON OF STATISTICS.
A comparison of the two preceding tables shows some interesting
facts. Although the returns are incomplete, still they suggest some
important questions in regard to (1) receipts, (2) number of licensed hunt-
ers, (3) number of big game licenses, and (4) statistics of former years.
« Maine is the only State in this list that does not issue resident licenses.
88
HUNTING LICENSES.
(1) Receipts. — The receipts from licenses exceeded $10,000 in nine
States: Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Maine," Michigan, Minnesota, North
Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. Notwithstanding the difference
in the fees charged, a nominal fee of $1 for resident licenses and an
average fee of $10 to $25 for nonresident licenses, the amount ordi-
narily collected from residents is far in excess of that received from
nonresidents. Thus, in Wisconsin in 1903 the returns from resident
licenses ($78,164) were more than six times as great as those from non-
resident licenses ($12,005); in Colorado, where the amounts were
$15,184* and $746, respectively, the resident were nearl}'^ twenty-one
times as large as the nonresident; and in Illinois, the amounts being
$95,000 and $3,750, respectively, more than twenty-five times as large.
(2) Nurnher of licensed hunters, — In the following table are shown
the number of licenses issued (indicating the number of licensed hun-
ters) and the amounts received therefrom (see PI. V) in each of the 10
States for which statistics are available for both resident and nonresi-
dent licenses:
Number of Licensed Hunters and Receipts from Licenses^ 1903.
State.
Colorado
Idaho
lUiiiois
Michigan
Minnesota —
Nebraska
North Dakota .
Washington...
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total....
Resident.
Nonresi-
dent.
Total
number.
15,184
34
15,218
12,370
267
12,637
95,000
250
95.250
19,061
45
19,106
8,910
833
9,243
3,744
84
3,828
11,574
123
11,697
14,982
(«)
14,982
78,164
659
78,823
299
168
457
259,288
1,963
261,241
Total
fees.
$15,930
14,105
98,750
15,421
14,205
4,584
11,756
14,982
90,169
8,199
288,101
a Nonresident licenses inseparable from resident licenses.
The most interesting fact brought out by this table is the total num-
ber of licenses issued. This number shows that in the above-mentioned
ten States more than a quarter of a million hunters were licensed during
the past year. This total, however, is less than the actual number of
hunters in these States, for the reason that in Michigan and Wyoming
no licenses are required from residents for anything except big game,
and in, Nebraska and Wyoming a resident is not required to secure a
license unless he shoots outside his own county.
The only State which shows larger returns from nonresident than
from resident licenses is Wyoming, which has a very high nonresident
fee of $50, and requires resident licenses only in the case of persons
« Deducting the fees for issue the amount was $9,890.
Bull. 19, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Plate V.
OOMPABISON OF STATISTICS.
39
hunting big game outside of the county of residence (see p. 32). These
conditions in a State so thinly settled and with la.rge counties would
naturally make the returns from resident licenses very small.
(3) Number ofhig game licenses. — As some of the States require sep-
arate licenses for big game and for game birds, it is possible to ascer-
tain approxiniiately the number of nonresident licenses issued for
hunting big game. The figures for 9 States and 4 Provinces are shown
in the table following:
Nonresident Licenses for Big Game issued in 1903.
State.
Colorado
Idaho
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Licenses.
Fees.
29
$725
20
500
1,697
25,465
45
1,125
131
3,275
61
1,525
♦ 136
1,360
861
9,026
State.
Wyoming
New Brunswick
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia
Ontario
Total
$7,900
10,140
3,600
1,200
6,476
From this table are omitted the returns from Nebraska, North
Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Manitoba, and the North-
west Territories, in which licenses for big game can not be separated
from those for game birds. Several other States, in which consider-
able big game hunting is done, are also necessarily omitted — South
Dakota, British Columbia, and Quebec, from which no reports are
available, and Vermont, New York, California, and Oregon, in which
no general hunting licenses are issued. But notwithstanding the in-
completeness of the statistics, several facts of interest are brought out.
Thus, it appears that in the nine States and four Provinces in the table
3,336 nonresident big game licenses were issued at a cost of $72,295,
that Maine issued more than one-half of these licenses and collected
more than one-third of the fees, and that New Brunswick stood second
in point of license receipts. If we assume that all the nonresident
licenses in Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Manitoba,
and the Northwest Territories were issued for big game hunting, the
totals would only be increased to 3,649 and $78,120, respectively, leav-
ing but six important States — New York, South Dakota, California,
Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, in addition to those in the
South — from which no returns are available. In other words, nearly
60 per cent of the 5,779 nonresident licenses issued in the United States
and most of those issued in Canada in 1903 were for hunting big game.
On the other hand, if the resident licenses could be separated in the
same way, the results would be very different. Fortunately, in five
cases these figures are available, as resident licenses are issued only
for big game in Michigan, Minnesota, Wyoming, New Brunswick, and
Ontario. In 1903 there were 19,061 resident licenses issued in Michi-
40
HUNTING LICENSES.
gan, 8,910 in Minnesota, 299»in Wyoming, 1,858 in New Brunswick,
and 5,860 in Ontario, making a total of 35,888, or nearly ten times as
many as were issued to nonresidents in the nineteen States and Prov-
inces mentioned above. The amount paid for the resident licenses,
however, was only $39,400, or about 50 per cent of the fees for the
nonresident licenses.
(4) Statistics of former years. — Still another inquiry suggested by
the table is whether or not the figures for 1903 are abnormal. On this
point few statistics are available for a term of years, but in Michigan
and Ontario the returns are complete for the entire time the resident-
license system has been in force. Michigan inaugurated its license
system in 1895; Ontario began to issue nonresident licenses in 1888
and resident licenses in 1896." The rates are about the same — $25 for
nonresidents in each case and 75 cents for residents in Michigan and
$2 in Ontario. Situate*d as they are, adjoining one another, with
much the same kind of hunting, this State and Province are admirably
adapted for a comparison of this kind.
Following are the figures for each year since 1895:
Number of Licenses issued in Michigan and Ontario f<^ 1896-190S.
Michigan.
Ontario.
Year.
Resident.
Nonresi-
dent.
Total.
Resident.
Nonresi-
dent.
Total.
1895 14.477
22
20
44
48
93
77
49
63
45
14,499
12,924
11,911
11,633
12,851
13,443
15,736
18,674
19,106
60
49
53
52
80
90
100
200
259
1896
1897
1898
12,904
11,867
11,585
12,758
13,366
15,687
18,621
19,061
3,452
2,300
3,300
3,917
4,200
5,090
5,165
5,707
3,501
2,353
3,352
1899
3,997
1900
4,290
5,190
1901
1902
6,365
1903
5,966
Total
130, 326
451
50
130,777
14,531
33,131
&4,141
943
105
34,014
Average
14,481
54,502
a Ontario also established a $5 resident license for moose and caribou in 1900.
of these licenses have been issued— 105 in 1900, 150 in 1902, and 153 in 1903— and
corresponding license, they have been omitted* from this table.
6 Average for 8 years, 1896-1903.
Comparatively few
as Michigan has no
This table shows that the total number of hunters licensed in Michi-
gan since 1895 was 130,777, and in Ontario since 1896, 34,014.
Although the number varies from year to year, there has been a steady
increase in resident licenses for six or seven years — in Michigan from
11,585 in 1898 to 19,061 in 1903, and in Ontario from 2,300 in 1897
to 5,707 in 1903. The number of nonresident licenses shows consider-
able fluctuation — in Michigan from 20 in 1896 to 93 in 1899, in Ontario
from 49 in 1896 to 259 in 1903.
COMPARISON OF STATISTICS. 41
While the issue of nonresident licenses in Ontario has increased
regularly and to larger proportions than in Michigan, the issue of
resident licenses has always been considerably smaller. This is
explained in part by the fact that in 1896 the government began the
issue of free settlers' permits, allowing one member of a family to kill
two deer for food purposes. In 1897, 2,300 of these permits were
issued, in 1898, 2,404, and in 1899, 2,665. But even if the settlers'
permits and resident licenses are combined, the total will still be less
than one-half the number of resident licenses issued in Michigan for
the same year.
LIMITATIONS OF THE LICENSE STSTEK.
In many States the license system is still in an experimental or
transitional stage, and its possibilities as a source of revenue, a check
on indiscriminate hunting, and incidentally as a means of collecting
important statistics concerning hunting, have not been fully realized.
It is, moreover, incomplete in some States, where it has not been
extended to residents or does not cover all kinds of game. These ine-
qualities are inherent in any^ new scheme and may be expected to
disappear in due time. Certain other inherent diflSculties, however,
give rise to problems which are not so readily solved. These may be
grouped under three heads: Special privileges, cost of collection, and
enforcement.
SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.
Much of the adverse criticism provoked by the license system has
been caused both by the privileges granted and by those withheld by
law. Certain exemptions already referred to (pp. 30-32) arouse hos-
tility to the sj^stem and undoubtedly interfere with its operation. On
the other hand, failure to accord reasonable privileges, which might be
granted without impairing the value of the law, has created irritation
and intensified opposition. The exceptional privileges granted resi-
dents of certain limited districts or members of certain clubs are
regarded, perhaps with justice, as class legislation. The omission to
exempt taxpayers from the requirements of the law, however, some-
times works injustice and arouses strong criticism. Both of these
extremes are at least of doubtful constitutionality, and seem to prevent
the best working of the system. Exemption of landowners or tax-
payers is in many cases necessary, but to devise a clearly constitutional
means for accomplishing it without interfering with the main object
of the law is one of the diflScult problems still to be solved. A lesser
evil, which can be more easily remedied, is the policy established in
some States of exacting a large fee for a hunting license and refusing
the licensee the privilege of carrying home even a limited amount of
the game or trophies he has secured. This is a source of irritation
that apparently serves no useful purpose, and might easily be removed.
COST OF COLLECTION.
Although comparatively unimportant, the expense of printing licenses
is an item that must be taken into account in considering the cost
42
Bull. 19, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. PLATE VI.
No..
~:\fj.
NON-RE5iDEI^ HUNTINQ LICBNSB.
Voar,
i'.m
Date
T * . .
Kf^id
. . State of
Ajn-.
Ihijrbt.
Weiffht
. Color of eyes
Color
of hair.
Distinctive markx
7
No...
iZ\)}
• »*• r '»*
NON-RESIDENT HUNTING LICENSE.
SBORETARY OP STATB'S STUB.
Ytar,
um.
Date
Li«-«'ii
M'i' . . .
i'tU't'
State of
. H«'i|f bt .
Weiipht
.Color of eyes
Color
of hair. .
.... Di.'^tinf'ti ve marks ......
^••.•v .c
•.tttt*ftrf*^et****fttrr-
No...
Season of 190s.
STATE OF WrSCONSIN.
Non-Resident Hunting
License.
1,
WM. H.
FKOEIILICH, ScH'i'Otary of State .»
f the State of Wisconsin,
«lo Iwrebv eerti
fv that..
of
(• ten aol'ljL, n'iMkX )n4% is jM
StMr. EflEFHCKErflArin^Vtl
th, ]!N):j. sftjcHt%H' ri-nSon.s J
iM> is not tlnsfer^lBuiiAil Ih> j^
1 (K'nmn<1.| ^J ^^ ^
^ed to hunt all protected
P open season therefor,
^ restrictions provided by
>wn to any Game Warden,
■
hnvinjr r»«J«l l'«
iPiuw of this
<'rnliMjr April IJCl
law. Thi.s licei
of this Stut*', o
DidfJCKIPTION or LICKN8BB. |
•
, ^
» . .
U' -i n r
. rolorof eyes /...
Color i.fhnir..
Di.^tinrtivr murks
fn tZlitnedd XQbereot
I have hereunto set my
■* .
hand and aOi.ved ray official seal, at the Capitol,
in the City of Madi.«M>n, thi.s
*
day of
...A. D. 1902.
HtMte
Countersigned:
riNh and 0«m« Wanton.
8^r*tary of State.
Nonresident Coupon License of Wisconsin.
Size 6 by 8^ inches, printed on light-blue glazed paper, and mounted on linen. (The
325 nonresident deer license is similar but bright red.)
ENFOBCEMENT. 48
of collection of Keense fees. Sometimes it becomes a considerable
item, especially in the case of a modern coupon license mounted on
clotti and furnished with metal eyelets for attaching the coupons to the
^me killed (see PI. VI). The method of issuing a license vaj-ies accord-
ing to the State, and the fees allowed oflScers that issue them are strik-
ingly different. When licenses are issued by game commissioners or
wardens who receive no special fees the cost of issue is merely the added
cost of clerical service. The usual method of issuing them through
county officers who are allowed a certain percentage, or a specified fee,
for their work oftentimes greatly reduces the income, particularly in the
case of resident licenses, in which the fees for issue are large in propor-
tion to amount of the license. In Wyoming the rate is 5 per cent of the
license fee, or 5 cents for issuing a resident license and $2.50 for a $50
nonresident license. In North Dakota the rate is 10 per cent. In Mich-
igan a clerk is allowed a uniform fee of 25 cents for issuing the 75 cent
resident license and the $25 nonresident license, or 33 per cent in one
case and 1 per cent in the other. Thus in 1903 it cost the State only
$11.25 to collect $1,125 from nonresidents, while it cost $4,765 to col-
lect $14,296 from residents. As the cost of issue is frequently de-
ducted from license receipts, the actual income is seriously reduced.
The cost of collecting license money should in all cases be reduced to a
minimum, in order to insure adequate funds for game protection, and
if the percentage plan is adopted the maximum fee allowed for issuing
the license should be limited to $1.
ENFORCEMENT.
Penalties for hunting without a license, like fees for issuing licenses,
exhibit considerable variation. Thus the penalty in North Dakota is
$20 to $50, or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days; in Wyoming,
$25 to $100, or ten to ninety days' imprisonment; in Minnesota, $50 to
llOO, or thirty to ninety days' imprisonment, or both; in South Dakota,
$25 to $200, and not more than thirty days' imprisonment, with for-
feiture of both gun and game. In all these States except Wyoming
the general nonresident license costs $25. If, as in some of the cases
just mentioned, the minimum penalty is about the same or less than the
license fee it encourages violation of the law. Unprincipled hunters
will risk detection and a fine that does not exceed the license rate on
the chance of escaping any payment. This diflSculty may be overcome
by making the minimum fine sufficiently large; thus $10 in the case of
residents and at least twice the license fee in that of nonresidents should
have a suflaciently deterrent effect. Confiscation of gun, boat, or other
paraphernalia may cause vigorous resistance to the law on constitu-
tional grounds, in which the contestant may be sustained by the courts.
The plan of holding the hunting outfit as security for payment of the
44 HUNTING LICENSES.
fine, however, as provided in some laws, is of a different character, and
may be employed with much better results.
The question naturally suggests itself as to how far license laws, and
especially those relating to nonresidents, are enforced. Unfortunately
statistics on the point are too meager to furnish reliable conclusions;
still such as are obtainable are interesting, as indicating that the laws
are certainly not violated with impunity. Thus for hunting without
a license there were 9 convictions in Montana in 1902; in New Jersey
9 convictions in 1902 and 45 arrests in 1903; in Pennsylvania 23 arrests
in 1902, and in West Virginia 5 convictions in 1901 and 8 in 1903.
Recently a sportsman from Homestead, Pa., who had been indicted for
hunting squirrels out of season in West Virginia, was arrested and
taken, under extradition papers, to Morgantown, W. Va., where he
was fined $25 and costs for hunting without a nonresident license.
He was also required to deposit $110 as a guarantee of his appearance
at the next term of court to answer the indictment.^ In Canada
hunting without a license frequently results in arrest.- In Ontario 26
arrests were made and 21 convictions secured in 1901, and 9 convic-
tions in 1902; 5 guns, 1 rifle, and 1 boat in the possession of unlicensed
hunters were also Seized in 1901.
o Letter dated September 17, 1904, from Deputy Warden Bemiett S. White, who
conducted the case.
Bull. 19, Biological Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Plate VII.
No. U i)
i^eceiuod from
Seattle Wash.,_
190
Address ... . .
The sum of One Dollar [$l.OOJ for I^ICEINSE to Hunt for, Pursue, Take,
Hunt, Otch or kill any of the said animals, fowls or birds under the provisions of the
Game La^s of the Slate of Washington, within King County,
for the term of One Year.
GEO. e. LAMPING
AUOiTOm Kimo coumrr, wabm.
Per
Deputy
...»
■—
x, 450J GAME LICENSE
8r>0.(M)
1\ « n\s||»|' K.\ 1 l(»\ .1 ili.i iMMu.-iit »i 1
it-
]\
)0|.|,.\RS. the
..., ,.| w!i.M.,l .> h.i,:.\ .1. !. 11. ■«!,.!;:. -.1. il:-;-. li,. n^,- is
^..•.
Med
In lh< Stall- of
U>..iiiiii^ 1..
. of
>I.ilA o^
.fiiil h<- is lurcliv ji.iuiittfd !'• pursti.-. Ii-.iiit iiiv<Hill not moM
Ih
m t\v
^Klk.tw.. De.i.
two Anti-1<>|u-. Dn.- Mi.uiil:iiii sfy «j) ;in<I one Moiiiu.iin G
..at
.will
in the- Sl.it«- of
Wvonn'ji'^.fioiu th« 1 ilt.nnh .!.i\V ^pi. nil..r »o th. I-iti
.-.
Ih (1.-
\ of .\o\«-nth< r.
.\. I>. li;<» .urnnv lit llu- i;.tnii- l<iiy-*i)l ihis st.dr <Jiiiini;; t
u-
linu-
.Ihnviil ther.foi
..I thr rurn-nt \c.ir '
IN WITNKSS WIlKkKoK. I. .
' A Juslici- of thr Trace within an<l fi>i tht- Count) of
in the Stale of Wyomin»;, havf hereunto s»-t my hanil this
day of A. 1). 190
•--
"i
IslicH
ol the r«acc.
iOl
i.;oL'l'()N.
(>m- l-.ik Killxl.
N„4501
OOUI'ON.
Onr KIk Killeil.
N.,.4r)01
cori'ON. .
One Deer Kille.l.
N„ 4501
(Ol I'ON.
One \),v{ Kille<l.
^ 4r:0J
No. ■*
COl'I'ON,
One Ant.Iope Killeil.
COUl'ON.
One Antelope Killed.
N,. 4501
coumN.
On • Mtn. Sheep Kiltrd.
4501
No.
COUPON.
One Mtn. Goat Killed.
Extremes of Nonresident Licenses, 1903— the $1 License of Washington and
THE $50 License of Wyoming.
The Washington license is 3f by 6J inches, printed on white paper, with an extract from the
law on the back; the Wyoming license is 6 by 8 inches and printed on white paper.
PRESENT STATUS OF LICENSE liEGISLATION.
From a small beginning in a few States nonresident licenses have
steadily increased in number during the past ten years, until at the
present time they are required in 31 States and Territories,^ and in
practically all the Provinces of Canada. Since 1895 the adoption of
resident licenses has spread to 13 States and 3 Canadian Provinces.
As a rule, nonresident licenses are required for hunting any game,
but in Michigan, New Hampshire, New Brunswick (except Westmore-
land County), and Newfoundland they are necessary only for big game.
Great variety .exists in the form of the license, in detail of issue, and
in the accompanying privileges, but there is a tendency toward the
adoption of more uniform fees and of the so-called coupon license,
which provides the holder not only with a permit to hunt but also tags
to insure the safe shipment of his game. The fees range from $1 to
$50 (see PL VII), but in most cases the rate is $10 for birds and $25
for big game and birds. In a few States the maximum rate has
recently been reduced to $15. The majority of States now permit the
licensee to carry with him out of the State a reasonable amount of
game obtained under his license.
Resident licenses are required in most of the States along the
northern border from Michigan westward. Ordinarily the fee is $1,
but in a few States it is only 75 cents, and in Hawaii $5. These licenses
were first required only for hunting big game, but in most States their
use has now been extended to cover hunting all game.
In some cases the receipts, particularly from resident licenses, have
furnished a much larger income for game protection than was anti-
cipated, and several States now depend largely on this source of revenue
for maintenance of their warden service. With adequate license laws
properly enforced, the work of game protection may be made prac-
tically self-supporting.
Naturally some opposition has been manifested to the adoption of
the license system. Questions have been raised as to the constitu-
tionality of the laws affecting nonresidents and some of these questions
are still unsettled.
« In addition to these States, Georgia and Oregon require nonresidents engaging
in market hunting to secure licenses. Market-hunting licenses are issued to residents,
only in Georgia, Louisiana, and Tennessee.
45
DECISIONS OF THE COURTS ON NONRESIDENT lilCENSE JjATWS.ft
Seveitil cases have been decided in State courts involving directly
or indirectly the validity of nonresident hunting licenses, but the ques-
tion has not yet been directly decided by the Supreme Court of the
United States. As there is no immediate prospect of such a decision *
it may be interesting at least to review briefly the precedents which
have already been established and to refer to one or two decisions of
the Supreme Court in analagous cases, which indicate to some extent
what the attitude of that court would be if the question were directly
before it. But first it should be explained that the chief grounds of
attack on the constitutionality of nonresident licenses are the clauses
in the Federal Constitution prohibiting taxes or duties on articles
exported from any State (Art. I, sec. 9), guaranteeing to citizens of
each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several
States (Art. IV, sec. 2), and prohibiting legislation "which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,
* * * or deny .to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws." (Amend. XIV.)
While nonresident license laws have been declared void in a few
cases, they have been so declared by inferior courts or on technical
grounds and not by the highest courts or on the merits of the ques-
tion. In 1886 the circuit court of Cmighead County, Ark., declared
the Arkansas act of 1875 unconstitutional (Am. Field, XXVII, p. 49,
Jan. 15, 1887). In April, 1887, the circuit court of Poinsett County,
Ark., held the same act unconstitutional, and as a consequence judg-
ment was rendered against the sheriff of the county for $10 and costs
in each of 18 cases in which he had collected $10 license fees from
nonresidents. (Am. Field, XXVIII, pp. 3-4, July 2, 1887.) In
1901 the superior court of Spokane County, Wash., declared the
Washington law unconstitutional because it discriminated in not re-
quiring boys under 16 years of age to be licensed, and in 1903 declared
a subsequent nonresident license law void on account of a defect in the
title. (Field and Stream, VIII, p. 501, Oct., 1903.) None of these
« See also article on * Nonresident Licenses,' by William A. Talcott, jr., in Forest
and Stream, L, pp. 205-206, March 12, 1898.
& In December, 1902, the 'American Field * started a fund for the purpose of defray-
ing the costs of carrying a test case to the Supreme Court, but during the first eight
months collected only about $160. (Am. Field, LVIII, pp. 693,597, 1902; LX, p.
145, 1903.)
46
DECISIONS OF THE COURTS. 47
cases was appealed to the supreme court, and the decisions, therefore,
even had they directly considered the license principle, could not be
considered as furnishing authoritative precedents. In 1903 the circuit
court of Crittenden County, Ark., declared the Arkansas law pro-
hibiting nonresidents from hunting in the State unconstitutional in
so far as it prohibited nonresidents from hunting on their own land.
(Am. Field, LX, p. 52, July 18, 1903.) This case has been appealed
to the supreme court of Arkansas, but the decision has not yet been
rendered. In May, 1904, a case (Cummings v. People) which may
result in a decision on the nonresident license question, was carried to
the supreme court of Illinois on writ of error. One of the conten-
tions in this case, which involves the constitutionality of the Illinois
^me law of 1903, is that the statute is invalid because it discriminates
between resident and nonresident hunters.
On the other hand two decisions have been rendered by higher courts
which uphold the constitutionality of such laws, one by the supreme
court of New Jersey in 1886 and the other by the United States circuit
court of the northern district of Illinois in 1899. In the former case
(Allen V. Wyckoff, 48 N. J. Law Rep. 90; 2 Atl. 659) one Allen was
arrested and fined $50 for violating the act for the protection of game
and game fish approved April 4, 1878, which imposed greater restric-
tions and severer penalties upon nonresidents of the State than upon
residents. The case was appealed to the supreme court of New Jersey,
which held that the act in question was not in violation of the four-
teenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting
any State from making any law which shall abridge the privileges of
citizens of the United States or deny to any person the equal protec-
tion of the laws; and furthermore that the statute was valid in its
application to a nonresident killing game on the property of persons
who have formed an association under the laws of the State for the
protection of game on their own property.
In passing upon the question of constitutionality, after showing that
section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution, and so much of the four-
teenth amendment as secures the privileges and immunities of a citizen
of the nation were not applicable to the case in hand, as Allen was not
a citizen of the United States, the court said:
The only clause of the federal constitution, therefore, which, on the surface seems
to have any pertinency is that forbidding a state to deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. But even this appearance is dissipated,
1 think, when we examine the decision of the supreme court of the United States
in the Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall. 36. It was there argued that a state law
which authorized a corporation to establish stock-yards and slaughter-houses in
and near New Orleans, and prohibited all other persons from slaughtering cattle or
keeping stock-yards elsewhere, within an area of about 1,154 square miles around
the city, was an infringement of this fourteenth amendment; that the right to use
one's land, skill, and labor in any lawful business for the acquisition of property
48 HUNTING LICENSES.
was a fundamental civil right, which, according to any just theory of government,
was entitled to the protection of the law; that, therefore, while the right might of
course be regulated by state legislation, this amendment required that the laws for
such purpose should operate equally upon all persons within the jurisdiction; and
that the statute, securing such a right to some persons, and denying it to others in
substantially similar situation, was invalid. But the court decided that laws of
this nature were not within the purview of this clause of the amendment; that it
had been framed to remedy the evils arising from the existence of laws in the states
where the newly-emancipated negroes resided, which discriminated with gross injus-
tice and hardship against them as a class; and that this design must be kept in view
in determining the scope and effect of the provision; the learned justice who spoke
for the court saying: * We doubt very much whether any action of a state not
directed by way of discrimination against the negroes as a class, or on account of
their race, will even be held to come within the purview of this provision. It is so
clearly a provision for that race and that emergency, that a strong case would be
necessary for its application to any other.' * * *
Bearing in mind, then, this indication of the scope of the amendment, afforded by
the ultimate arbiter of its construction, how can it be said that the statute now under
review is interdicted by it? * * * The statute seems to stand in the same cate-
gory as the Louisiana act, as an exercise of the police power for the regulation of
one of the modes of acquiring property; and, as such, it might be embraced within
the terms of the amendment, by giving them their widest signification, but, restricted
as the supreme court declares their meanmg to be, they do. not touch the matter in
hand. No rights of the prosecutor under the federal constitution therefore seem to
be infringed.
In the Illinois case, In re Eberle (98 Fed. 295), the validity bf the
nonresident license was directly decided. Frank Eberle, a citizen of
Iowa and a member of the Crystal Lake Club, an Illinois corporation
authorized to acquire and own real estate in Illinois for use as a ^ame
and fish preserve, was arrested when hunting on the lands of the club.
He was charged with hunting without a license in violation of the State
law requiring a license of $10 from nonresidents, passed in 1899 subse-
quent to the incorporation of the club. At the trial the defendant
was adjudged guilty of violation of the statute and was sentenced to
pay a fine of $25 and costs and stand committed until the fine was
paid. An unsuccessful application was made to the United States
circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus.
In denying the writ the court held:
The sovereign ownership of wild game is in the state, in trust for the benefit of
its citizens; and a statute requiring the payment of a license by a nonresident for the
privilege of hunting such game within the state is a police regulation within the
power of the state, and not in violation of article 4, sec. 2, of the federal consti-
tution, or of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment, although such fee is not required
of residents of the state; nor is the validity of such regulations as to a particular
individual, who is a nonresident of the state, affected by the fact that he is a stock-
holder in a corporation of the state which owns lands maintained as a game preserve.
Several important decisions are on record sustaining statutes pro-
hibiting nonresidents from taking oysters. As early as 1823 the
United States circuit court upheld the New Jersey oyster law of 1820
DECISIONS OF THE COURTS. 49
(Corfield v, Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371). This is a leading case on
the subject. In 1855 the supreme court of Rhode Island sustained a
similar statute of that State passed in 1844, which prohibited nonresi-
dents from taking oysters within the waters of Rhode Island. In
1873 the supreme court of New Jersey upheld the New Jersey act of
1846 (Haney v. Compton, 36 N. J. L. 507), and in 1901 again upheld
a similar statute passed in 1899 (State v. Corson, 50 Atl. 780). In
rendering the decision in the Haney case the court said:
A full ownership of this species of property empowers the State to declare who
shall take it, upon what terms it shall be taken, and by what means it shall be
removed. A citizen of Pennsylvania cannot claim a right to acquire the property
of New Jersey in a manner different from that to which New Jersey agrees to dispose
of it.
The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the public
ownership of game and has quoted with approval the decision of the
supreme court of California {Ex parte Maier) to the effect that —
The wild game within a State belongs to the people in their collective sovereign
capacity. It is not the subject of private ownership except in so far as the people
may elect to make it so; and they may, if they see fit, absolutely prohibit the taking
of it, or traffic and commerce in it, if it is deemed necessary for the protection or
preservation of the public good. (Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 529.)
The same court has, moreover, decided, in the case of McCready v.
Virginia (94 U. S. 248), that a State may pass laws discriminating
against nonresidents, by upholding, in 18Y7, a statute of Virginia (act
of 1846) which absolutely prohibited nonresidents from planting oys-
ters in the waters within the limits of the State. In rendering the
opinion of the court Chief Justice Waite said:
The precise question to be determined in this case is, whether the State of Virginia
can prohibit the citizens of other States from planting oysters in Ware River, a stream
in that State where the tide ebbs and flows, when its own citizens have that privilege.
The principle has long been settled in this court, that each State owns the beds of
all tide waters within its jurisdiction, unless they have been granted away. * * *
By article IV., sec. 2, of the Constitution, the citizens of each State are 'entitled
to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.' * * ^ we
think we may safely hold that the citizens of one State are not invested by this
clause of the Constitution with any interest in the common property of the citizens
of another State. If Virginia had by law provided for the sale of its once vast public
domain, and a division of the proceeds among its own people, no one, we venture to
say, would contend that the citizens of other States had a constitutional right to the
enjoyment of this privilege of Virginia citizenship. Neither if, instead of selling,
the State had appropriated the same property to be used as a common by its people
for the purposes of agriculture, could the citizens of other States avail themselves of
such a privilege. And the reason is obvious; the right thus granted is not a privi-
lege or immunity of general but of special citizenship. It does not 'belong of right
to the citizens of all free governments,' but only to the citizens of Virginia, on
account of the peculiar circumstances in which they are placed. They, and they
alone, owned the property to be sold or used, and they alone had the power to dis-
pose of it as they saw fit. They owned it not by virtue of citizenship merely, but of
6095— No. 19—04 4
50 HUNTING LICENSES,
citizenship and domicil united; that is to say, by virtue of a citizenship confined to
that particular locality.
The planting of oysters in the soil covered by water owned in common by the
People of the State is not different in principle from that of planting corn upon dry
land held in the same way. Both are for the purposes of cultivation and profit; and
if the State, in the regulation of its public domain, can grant to its own citizens the
exclusive use of dry lands, we see no reason why it may not do the same thing in
respect to such as are covered by water. And as all concede that a State may grant
to one of its citizens the exclusive use of a part of the common property, the conclu-
sion would seem to follow, that it might by appropriate legislation confine the use
of the whole to its own People alone.
HUNTING LICENSES IN FOREIGN COT7NTBIES.
For purposes of comparison with the license system of the United
States and Canada, particularly in the matter of fees, reference may
be made briefly to the conditions surrounding hunting in a few foreign
countries. In general it may perhaps be said that hunting licenses
are required in a majority of civilized countries, except those under
the control of Spanish-speaking nations. In Europe licenses to hunt
or to carry firearms are genemlly required, and in some countries, as
for example, Prussia, distinctions are made between residents and
nonresidents. Without going into the subject in detail it will suffice
to mention by way of illustration the license systems of Great Britain
and Germany for Europe, Japan for Asia, New Zealand for Australasia,
and the colonies of German East and Southwest Africa, Sudan, and
Transvaal for Africa. It will be observed that the issue of hunt-
ing licenses is not restricted to the older countries of Europe where
game is scarce, but has been extended to colonies in the heart of Africa
which have only recently come undef European control and where
large game is more abundant than anywhere else in the world.
GBEAT BRITAIN.
For shooting in Great Britain three or even four licenses must be
taken into consideration. Separate licenses are required for killing
game, for carrying a gun, and for the use of a dog, and in addition, a
gamekeeper's license may be necessary. Game and gun licenses are
the only ones requiring consideration in this connection. Both are
excise licenses, and enforcement of the regulations regarding them is
in the hands of the commissioners of inland revenue. Under the act
of 1860, '' licenses to kill game "^ are issued throughout Great Britain
and Ireland for one year, ending July 31, at a cost of £3 ($15), or for
a period of six months, at £2 ($10), or for fourteen days, at £1 ($5).
These licenses may be obtained at most post-offices. They are not
required for netting or trapping woodcock and snipe, for capturing
rabbits and hares, or for hounding or hunting deer on inclosed lands
with the owner's permission. Members of the Royal family and the
King's gamekeepers are exempt from the provisions of the law, and a
further exemption is made of unarmed assistants of licensees.
« This is the designation in England and Scotland. In Ireland the earlier term of
'certificates' is still retained.
5X
52 HUNTING LICENSES.
Under the act of 1870, every person who uses or carries a gun is
required to secure a license unless he has a license to kill game. Gun
licenses may be obtained at money-order offices, and, like game licenses,
are good throughout the United Kingdom. These licenses are issued
for one year, expiring July 31, at a cost of- 10 shillings ($2.50). A
gun license is not required in case of members of the naval, military,
or volunteer service, of any person carrying a gun belonging to the
holder of a gun or game license, or where guns are used to kill verpiin
or frighten birds by occupants of lands, or are carried by gunsmiths or
common carriers in connection with their regular business.
GERMANY.
Under the law of July 31, 1895, several forms of licenses (Jagd-
scheine) are issued for hunting in Prussia. A resident may obtain an
annual license on payment of 15 marks ($3.75), or one good for three
days for 3 marks (75 cents). A foreigner or nonresident — that is, a
person who has no domicile or owns no property in Prussia — mast pay
40 marks ($10) for an annual license and 6 marks ($1.50) for a three-day
license. Officers in the forest service are furnished free licenses good
for a year. In either case the holder must own land on which he can
hunt or must have an invitation from some one who owns a preserve.
Each license has its own distinctive color — yellow for the annual, red
for the daily, white for the gratuitous, and the same colors, but with
a black background, for the nonresident. Each has a diagram printed
on the back, showing the open and close seasons for each kind of game,
and is good throughout Prussia, except in the island of Heligoland.
NEW ZEALAND.
Under the animals protection act of 1880 hunting game is prohibited
except under license. These licenses are good only during the open
season and within the district for which issued. The license fees,
not to exceed 50 shillings ($12.50), are fixed by notification of the
governor.
JAPAN.
Under the general game law of Japan two series of licenses are
issued: (A) For capture of live game with net or lime, and (B) for
killing game with a gun. Each of these licenses is issued in three
classes, distinguished by different colors, and these classes are based
upon the amount of taxes paid by the holder. First-class licenses
(buff) are issued to persons paying not less than 100 yen ($50) income
tax, 500 yen ($250) land tax, or 150 yen ($75) business tax. To such
persons or the members of their families the fee is 20 yen ($10).
Second-class licenses (green) are issued to persons paying not less than
3 yen ($1.50) income tax, 30 yen ($15) land tax, or 20 yen ($10) business
HUNTING LICENSES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 53
tax, and the fee for such persons or the members of their families is
10 3 en ($5). Third-class licenses (red) are issued to persons who are
not included in the first and second classes. All these licenses are
printed on pieces of thin cardboard somewhat larger than ordinary
postal cards. Oh the face of the license are shown the number and
class and the season for which -issued; the status, domicile, occupation,
name, and age of the holaer; and the seal of the department of agri-
culture and commerce. On the back is printed an abstract of the game
law, showing the close seasons, the birds protected at all times, and the
conditions under which hunting is permitted.
GERMAN EAST AFRICA.
Under the ordinance of July, 1903, hunting licenses are required in
the German East African hunting district. The fee is 10 rupees*
($3.25), but applicants who have no permanent residence in the dis-
trict are required to make a deposit of 500 rupees before the license
is issued. In addition, special fees are required for hunting the fol-
lowing kinds of game: 1 rupee for each dwarf antelope; 3 rupees for
each gnu, hartebeest, waterbok, rappenantilope, certain other kinds
of antelope, kudu, oryx, ape {Colobus), or marabu; 10 rupees for each
leopard; 20 rupees for each buflFalo, hippopotamus, or lion; 30 rupees
for each rhinoceros, and 100 rupees for each elephant.
These licenses are good only during the calendar year in which
issued, are not transferable, and may be refused to applicants who,
during the five years preceding their application, have been guilty of
violating the game or certain other laws of the district.
GERMAN SOUTHWEST AFRICA.
Under the ordinance of 1902 licenses are issued under certain con-
ditions for hunting in German Southwest Africa. As in similar cases
elsewhere, these licenses are issued for one year, are valid throughout
the hunting district, are not transferable, and are to be obtained in
the district of which the person is a resident. The fee is 30 marks
($7.50). If the applicant is not a resident of the district, permits may
be obtained from the government. When hunting is carried on in
connection with a regular expedition a special license must be obtained,
the fee for which is 1,000 marks ($250) per year unless suspended by
special order of the government.
SUDAN.
In the Sudan two forms of licenses are issued for hunting. License
A costs ^25 ($125), and entitles the holder to capture or kill a limited
number of any of the common and some of the rarer species of big
oThe rupee is equivalent to about 32i cents.
54 HUI^TING LICENSES.
game, including several kinds of antelope and some of the larger birds.
Special fees, varying from 250 milliemes ($1.25) to 50 pounds Egyptian
($256) — in the case of rhinoceroses — are required for killing certain
animals, and extra taxes are collected for the shipment of trophies of
various species. License B costs but £5 ($25), and allows the holder
to kill 10 specimens each of wild sheep, ibex, wart hog, certain species
of antelope, and large bustards.
TRANSVAAL.
In the Transvaal, under the game ordinance of 1902, a license is
required to hunt in any part of the colony, except by owners or lessees
of land hunting on their own property. The fee for this license is £3
($15) for the whole season, or £1 ($5) for a period not exceeding two
weeks. Certain game, such as elephants, hippopotamuses, buflfaloes,
several of the rarer antelopes, giraffes, rhinoceroses, quaggas, zebras,
ostriches, and cranes can not be hunted without a special permit from
the Colonial Secretary, and such permit must bear a £26 ($125) stamp.
INI>SX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, 1872-1904.
The following index is arranged chronologically to show the progress
of license legislation in the United States and Canada. An attempt is
here made to bring together in a brief summary all the important
acts, including those prohibiting nonresidents from hunting, which
have been passed in the various States and Provinces since 1872,
apparently the date of the first hunting-license law in the United
States. Various restrictions were imposed on nonresidents much
earlier than this, but no attempt has been made to collect these laws
systematically. The more important ones, with their references, are
noted on pages 10-12.
The number of statutes mentioned in the following list is about 160,
of which over 50 are local laws of Maryland. Each entry is accom-
panied by a brief statement of the important provisions of the law and
a reference to the volume and chapter or page, so that the original
statute may be readily consulted, if necessary.
[An asterisk * indicates the first law of the kind in the State or county.]
1872. Karyland. — $20 licenses* required for sink boxes and |5 licenses* for sneak
boats used in hunting wild fowl on the Susquehanna flats in Cecil and Har-
ford counties. Licenses issued only to residents. (Laws of 1872, chap. 54.)
1873. New Jersey. — Nonresident license* required to hunt in Atlantic, Camden, Cape
May, Cumberland, Gloucester, or Salem counties. Fees, |5 first year and $2
in subsequent years. (Acts of 1873, chap. 470.) Repealed March 23, 1896.
1876. Arkansas.— $10 market hunting license* required of nonresident trappers,
hunters, seiners, or netters of fish. (Acts of 1875, p. — .) Fee increased in
1897. Privilege of hunting entirely withdrawn from nonresidents in 1903.
Florida. — $25 nonresident county license * required for hunting game to carry
out of the State. A party of six persons hunting together included under
one license on payment of an additional $5 each. (Acts of 1875, chap. 2055. )
1876. Karyland.—
Anne Arundel. — $30 licenses* issued to residents only to use sink boxes in
hunting waterfowl on the waters of the county. (Laws of 1876, chap. 78. )
Anne Arundel and Prince George. — Nonresidents prohibited * from hunting
in Anne Arundpl and Prince George counties without permission from land-
owners. Penalty, $5 fine and forfeiture of gun. (Ibid., chap. 309.)
1877. Missouri. — Nonresidents prohibited* from hunting game for sale or export
(Lawsofl877, p. 333.)
Tennessee. — Nonresidents of Obion and Lake counties prohibited* from killing
wild fowl for market on Beelfoot Lake. (Laws ol 1877, chap. 145, sec. 1.)
66
56 HUNTING LICENSES.
1878. Maryland.—
Cecil. — $10 license* required of residents of Cecil County for use of sink
boxes on Elk and Bohemia rivers. (Laws of 1878, chap. 292. )
Fee for sink-box license on Susquehanna Flats in Cecil County, reduced
from $20 to |10. ( Ibid. , chap. 292. )
Hew Jersey. — Nonresidents prohibited* from hunting any game except water-
fowl without complying with the by-laws of the game protective societies
organized or to be organized under the laws of the State. (Laws of 1878,
chap. 184, sec. 1.)
Hew Brunswick. — $20 nonresident license* required for hunting any animals or
birds in the Province. Licenses good until September 1 following date of
issue. Fee for oflScers of army or navy, $5. (Laws of 1878, chap. 45, sees.
26-29.)
1879. Delaware. — Nonresidents required to secure certificates of membership* in the
Delaware Game Protective Association before hunting in the State. Fees,
$6 the first year, $2 in subsequent years. (Laws of 1879, chap. Ill, sec. 6.)
HiBBonri. — Nonresidents prohibited from hunting within the State. ( Rev. Stat.
1879, I, sec. 1618.)
TenncBBee.— Hunting game for profit prohibited* in Cumberland, Fentress,
Morgan, Scott, Campbell, Overton, Putnam, White, Roane, Carroll, Rhea,
Bledsoe, and Van Buren counties. (Laws of 1879, chap. 133, sec. 1.)
Virginia — Nonresidents of the State prohibited* from hunting or trapping
partridges in Accomac or Northampton counties without written consent of
owners or occupants of the lands. (Acts of 1879, chap. — .)
1880. Maryland.—
Cecil and Kent. — $10 license* required of residents of Cecil and Kent coun-
ties for the use of sink boxes on Sassafras River. (Laws of 1880, chap. 42. )
Patuxent Biver. — Nonresidents of Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, Prince
George, and St. Mary counties prohibited* from shooting snipe, ortolan, and
wild fowl on the Patuxent River. (Ibid., chap. 176.)
dueen Anne. — $10 license* required of residents of Queen Anne County for
use of sink boxes on waters of county. Licensee prohibited from allowing
use of sink box to nonresident under penalty of $20-$100, and (in case of
nonresident) confiscation of sink box and other paraphernalia. In case
of resistance the penalty is $50-$100. (Ibid., chap. 370. )
1882. Maryland.—
Anne Arundel. — Licenses.* at $2 each (and clerk's fee of 50 cents) required
for the use of 'booby' or *bush' blinds on the Severn, South, and Magothy
rivers. (Laws of 1882, chap. 400.)
Caroline.— $4.50 nonresident license* required for hunting rabbits, musk-
rats, quail or partridges, woodcock, sora or water rail, and ducks in Caroline
County.
Quebec. — $20 nonresident licenses* required for hunting in the Province. (45
Vic, chap. 15, sees. 17-18.)
1883. North Carolina. — Nonresidents of the State prohibited from shooting wild fowl
in Currituck and Dare counties from blind, box, battery, or float on the
water.
1884. New York.— $10 nonresident license* required for hunting on Staten Island
(Richmond County). (Laws of 1884, chap. 185. ) Repealed in 1892.
South Carolina. — $25 market-hunting license* required for each nonresident
hand employed by nonresidents hunting ducks, fishing, gathering oysters
or terrapins, or selling game in Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, and
Georgetown counties. (Laws of 1884, p. 734.)
INDEX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 57
1884. Nova Scotia. — ^$30 nonresident license * required for killingmoose and other game,
and $10 nonresident license* for killing birds. All licenses expire August 1.
Fee for officers in Her Majesty's service $5, but members of Game and
Inland Fishery Protection Society exempt. (Rev. Stats., 5th ser., chap. 76,
sec. 26.)
Quebec. — $20 nonresident license required for hunt in the province, but in
exceptional cases lieutenant-governor in council may grant hunting permits
at a less rate or gratuitously. License not required of Ontario hunters. (47
Vic, chap. 25, sec. 20.)
1885. South Carolina. — Market-hunting license provisions of 1884 modified to add to
the $25 license for each nonresident hand a $25 nonresident license for
pursuing the business.
1886. Maryland.—
Anne Arundel and Prince George. — $6 nonresident license* for hunting rab-
bits, partridges, and woodcock. Guest hunting on land of host exempt.
(Laws of 1886, chap. 190.)
Baltimore. — $10 nonresident license* for hunting rabbits or woodcock.
(Ibid., chap. 538.)
Caroline. — $19.50 license required of nonresidents for hunting rabbits,
muskrats, quail or partridges, woodcock, sora or water rail, or ducks. (Ibid. ,
chap. 505.)
Kent. — $4.50 nonresident license* for hunting any game. Guest hunting
on land of host exempt. (Ibid., chap. 135.)
dneen Anne. — ^$4.50 nonresident license* for hunting any game. Guest
hunting on land of host exempt. (Ibid., chap. 88.)
Talbot. — $9.50 nonresident license* for hunting any game protected by the
county. (Ibid., chap. 442.)
Virginia. — Nonresidents prohibited* from killing wild fowl from skiff, float, or
sink box in Fairfax, Henrico, King George, Prince William, or Stafford
counties. Guns, boats, or sink boxes to be forfeited. Law not applicable
to nonresidents renting shores on broad waters of Back Bay. (Acts of 1886,
chap. 383.)
Wyoming. — Nonresidents prohibited* from hunting game animals in the State.
(Laws of 1886, chap. 109.) Repealed in 1895.
1887. dnebec. — $5 resident licenses* issued for killing 5 caribou and 5 deer more than
legal number. Commissioner of Crown lands may exempt from payment of
the fee any Indian whose poverty has been established to his satisfaction.
Nonresident license fee of members of hunting and fishing clubs incorporated
in the Province reduced to $10. Limit on big game which may be killed
under license. (50 Vic, chap. 16, sees. 3 and 12.)
1888. Maryland. —
Caroline. — $4.50 fee restored for nonresident license, and owners of real
estate in county exempted from requirements of license law.
Charles. — $20 nonresident license* required for hunting rabbits, partridges,
or woodcock. Penalty, $20, or ten days and forfeiture of gun, ammunition,
and other apparatus. (Not needed by one hunting by written permission
of landowner.) $25 nonresident license for hunting wild fowl on waters of
county. (Laws of 1888, chap. 352. )
Dorchester. — ^$5 nonresident license* required for hunting rabbits, part-
ridges, or woodcock. (Not needed by owners of land in county, or their
relatives, nor by relatives or connections by marriage of residents.) (Ibid.,
chap. 29.)
Howard. — $7.50 nonresident license * for hunting any game. (Not needed
by one hunting under written permission of landowner. ) (Ibid., chap. 90. )
58 HUNTING LICENSES.
1888. South Carolina. — Nonresident market-hunting license fees increased to $500,
and $100 additional for each nonresident hand employed.
Ontario. — Nonresidents prohibited from killing deer prior to 1895 unless they
have secm^ a $10 license* from the commissioner of Crown lands. Law
not applicable to shareholders in an incorporated company hunting on lands
of said company. (51 Vic, chap. 36, sec. 16.)
1889. Tennessee. — Nonresidents of the State prohibited* from hunting game for profit
in certain counties and from hunting at all in others. (Laws of 1889, chap.
179, sec. 1; chap. 244, sec. 2.)
Nonresidents of certain counties prohibited from killing game for market
in these counties. (Ibid., chap. 244, sec. 2.)
Nonresidents of the State prohibited from killing wild fowl on Beelfoot
Lake. (Ibid., chap. 156, sec. 1.)
Newfoundland. — $100 nonresident license * required for killing caribou. Officers
of British war ships stationed on the coast for fisheries protection exempt
from license. (Deer preservation act 1889, sec. 6; Con. Stat. 1892, chap. 143,
sec. 6.)
1890. Maryland.—
Dorchester. — Nonresidents of Parson Creek, Church Creek, and Neck dis-
tricts prohibited* from hunting wild fowl in the Little Choptank River.
Penalty: $20 and costs, and forfeiture of boat, guns, and other "fixtures.*'
(Laws of 1890, chap. 140. )
Somerset. — $9.50 nonresident license * for hunting any game. (Not needed
by one invited and accompanied by a resident. ) (Ibid., chap. 589. )
Worcester. — $10 nonresident license* for hunting wild fowl. (Ibid., chap.
446.)
British Columbia. — $50 nonresident license* required for killing big game.
Limit: 10 deer, 2 bull elk, 3 reindeer, 5 caribou, 8 mountain sheep, 8 moun-
tain goats. Members of army, navy, and Canadian militia in service in the
Province require no licenses. (Game-protection act 1890, sees. 9-10. )
Manitoba.— $25 nonresident license,* good for calendar year, required for hunt-
ing animals or birds in the Province. (Game act of 1890, sec. 8.)
1892. Maryland.—
Anne Arnndel and Prince George.— Law of 1880 (chap. 176) amended so as
to restrict hunting of snipe, ortolan, and wild fowl on the Patuxent River in
Anne Arundel and Prince George counties to residents of these counties,
except such as have permission of a majority of the citizens adjacent to the
river and employ a licensed boat. $2 pusher's license* required for pushing,
paddling, or conveying nonresidents hunting on Patuxent River. Penalty:
$10-$30, or, in default, confiscation of boat and fixtures. (Laws of 1892,
chap. 360.)
St. Mary. — $20 nonresident license* required for hunting rabbits, partridges,
and woodcock. Penalty: $20 or ten days, and forfeiture of guns and other
paraphernalia. (Ibid., chap. 588.)
Sonth Carolina. — $25 nonresident license* required for hunting in Beaufort
County; Horry County added to those in which market hunting is licensed.
Virginia. — Nonresidents of the State prohibited* from killing wild fowl on the
marshes, islands, or beaches below the head of tide water, except in Accomac
and Northampton counties. (Laws of 1891-2, p. 1070.)
Ontario. — $25 nonresident license* required for hunting big game or birds.
(Acts of 1892, chap. 58, sec. 8.)
1898. Sonth Carolina. — $25 nonresident county license* required for killing game of
any kind. Not required of persons hunting on their own land. (Act of
December 22, 1893, sec. 3.) [Repealed by omission from Code of 1902.]
INDEX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 59
1893. Northwest Territories. — $5 nonresident license,* good until May 15 following
date of issue, required for hunting big game or birds. Free licenses * may be
granted to guests of residents for five days or less. (Game ordinance of 1893, «
sec. 11.)
1894. Maryland.—
Anne Arundel and Prince George. — Laws of 1880 (chap. 176) and 1892 (chap.
360) amended by extending privilege of hunting snipe, ortolan, and wild fowl
on Patuxent River to citizens of Calvert County. (Laws of 1894, chap. 586.)
Anne Arundel. — Nonresidents prohibited* from hunting in the county.
Penalty : $10-1550, or, in default, one to three months, and forfeiture of gun and
other apparatus. (Ibid., chap. 103.)
Baltimore. — $10 nonresident license required for hunting gray squirrels,
rabbits, partridges, pheasants, and woodcock. Penalty: $10 for each bird or
animal killed or in possession, forfeiture of gun to owner of property on
which game is killed, and ten days in default of fine. Taxpayers and those
hunting except for market under express authority on land of resident are
exempt. Nonresidents prohibited from hunting or obtaining license until
1895. (Ibid'., chap. 122.)
Carroll. — $10 nonresident license * required for hunting squirrels, rabbits,
partridges, pheasants, and woodcock. Penalty: $10 for each animal or bird
killed or found in possession, forfeiture of gun to owner of property on which
game is killed, and ten days in default of fine. Taxpayers and those hunt-
ing under express authority on land of resident are exempt. (Ibid,, chap.
224.)
Cecil.— Chapter 292, laws of 1878, repealed, and use of sink boat, sneak
boat, or boat of any kind on Elk and Bohemia rivers prohibited.* (Laws of
1894, chap. 556.)
Charles. — Nonresidents prohibited * from shooting wild fowl on waters of
county. Penalty: $30 or thirty days, and forfeiture of guns, traps, boats,
and all other devices used in violation of law. Repeal of nonresident license
for shooting wild fowl; established in 1888. (Ibid., chap. 225.)
Harford. — $10 nonresident license* required for shooting rabbits, partridges,
pheasants, woodcock, rail, reedbird, and robins. Taxpayers and persons
hunting by invitation on land of resident are exempt. (Ibid., chap. 139. )
Kent. — $15 nonresident license required for shooting squirrels, rabbits,
and birds. (Not needed by owner or tenant of land in county, and reduced
to $5 in case of anyone hunting by invitation on land of resident.) (Ibid.,
chap. 501.
Prince George. — $20 nonresident license for shooting rabbits, partridges,
and woodcock. (Ibid., chap. 542.)
Virginia. — Nonresidents of the State, except members of the Eastern Shore
Game Protective Association^ prohibited * from killing wild fowl in Accomac
and Northampton counties. (Acta of 1894, chap. 740, sec. 2.) [The effect
of this law was to make the membership fee in the association virtually a
nonresident license fee. ]
Kova Scotia. — Nonresident license provisions of 1884 practically reenacted.
(Laws of 1894, chap. 2, sees. 29-31.)
1895. Michigan. — $25 nonresident* and 50 cent resident* licenses required for hunt-
ing deer. Licenses good only during open season, limited to 5 deer and
required to have coupon attached authorizing shipment of 1 deer to any
point in the State. Approved May 4, 1895. (Laws of 1895, chap. 238.)
a The application of this ordinance was limited to Alberta, Assiniboia, and Sas-
katchewan by sec. 26 of the Unorganized Territories' Game Preservation acts of 1894
(57-58 Vic, chap. 31).
60 HUNTING LICENSES.
1895. MinnoBota. — $25 nonresident license * required for hunting any game birds or
animals, but law applicable only to citizens of States which have restrictive
laws against nonresident hunters. Approved April 25, 1895. (Laws of 1895,
chap. 207.) Repealed in 1903.
North Carolina. — ^$25 nonresident license * required for shooting from boxes,
batteries, or floats on the waters of Dare County, south of the line from
Manteo to Nagshead Life-Saving Station. (Laws of 1895, chap. 286. )
Horth Dakota. — $25 nonresident license* and 50 cent resident license* required
for hunting any animals or birds in the State. Nonresidents cultivating not
less than a quarter section of land may obtain resident license in county in
which land is cultivated, and landowners hunting on their own property
require no licenses. « (Rev. Codes, 1895, sec. 1645.)
Wyoming. — $20 nonresident county license * substituted in place of absolute
prohibition in case of nonresidents hunting big game. Licenses permit kill-
ing males only during September, October, and November, and solely for
food. Approved February 20, 1895. (Laws of 1895, chap. 98, sec. 14.)
British Columbia. — $50 nonresident license required for hunting big game.
Members of army, navy, and Canadian militia require no license. (Game-
protection act 1895, sees. 19-20. )
Quebec. — $5 resident license authorizing killing of 3 caribou and 3 deer (formerly
5) in excess of regular limits. Nonresident licenses divided into four classes:
(1) For hunting all animals and birds except nongame birds, fee $30.
(2) For hunting big game and fur-bearing animals, fee $25. (3) For hunt-
ing woodcock, snipe, plover, curlew, sandpipers, partridges, or water fowl,
fee $20. (4) For hunting the same birds on the islands, bays, or shores of
the Gulf of St. Lawrence,* fee $10. Fees reduced one-half in case of members
of fish and game clubs incorporated in the Province. In exceptional cases
lieutenant-governor in council, on recommendation of commissioner, may
reduce fees or issue free permits. (59 Vic, chap. 20, sees. 1 and 8. )
1896. Hawaii. — $5 hunting license* required on the island of Oahu. (Laws of 1896,
act 64.)
Newfoundland. — $100 nonresident license required for killing caribou. (Act
August 6, 1896, sec. 5.)
Nova Scotia. — Modification in details of nonresident license law of 1884. $10
nonresident license required for hunting birds, hares, and rabbits, and $30
nonresident license for hunting other game. All licenses expire August 1.
Fee for oflicers of army or navy stationed at Halifax, $5. Army or navy
officers belonging to the Game and Inland Fishery Protection Society, per-
sons who havehad domicile in Nova Scotia, are in the service of the Province
or of the government of Canada, and are members of the game society, and
nonresidents paying not less than $20 real-estate tax, are exempt. (Laws of
1896, chap. 4, sees. 32-34; Rev. Stat., 1900, II, chap. 101, sees. 25-28.)
Ontario. — Residents required to obtain licenses* at $2 each to hunt deer in the
Province. (59 Vic, chap. 68, sec. 2.)
1897. Michigan. — Nonresident license for deer, $25. Resident license increased to 75
cents. All licenses must bear coupons properly eyeletted; full details of
issue. (Acts of 1897, p. 403.)
North Carolina. — Nonresidents of the State prohibited* from hunting birds or
wild fowl in Camden County. (Laws of 1897, chap. 558, sec. 2.)
North Dakota. — Resident license fee increased to 75 cents; nonresident land-
owners required to secure resident licenses.
« This law did not become effective until December, 1895. See Forest and Stream,
XLV, p. 89, August 3, 1895.
INDEX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 61
1897. Tennessee. — Nonresidents of Grundy and Van Buren counties prohibited * from
killing deer, quail (partridge) or wild turkey in those counties. (Laws of
1987, chap. 172.)
Wisconsin. — $30 nonresident license* and $1 resident license* required for
hunting deer. Resident licenses required only in forty counties, designated
as 'counties frequented by deer.' Full details in regard to issue of coupon
licenses. (Laws of 1897, chap. 221.)
New Brnnswick. — 120 nonresident and $2 resident licenses* required for killing
moose or caribou. Nonresidents inquired to furnish $100 bond* with 2
resident sureties for observance of the game laws. (Acts of 1897, chap. 23,
sees. 8-11.)
Qnebec. — Nonresident license fees graded* according to a tariff established
by the lieutenant-governor in council. Fee may be reduced in case of
members of a fish-and-game club incorporated in the Province, provided
club leases a hunting reserve. (60 Vic, chap. 25, sec. 6.)
1898. Northwest Territories. — $15 nonresident license, good only from August 1 to
January 31, required for hunting any of the animals or birds mentioned by
the ordinance. Guest license omitted. (Ordinance No. 40 of 1898, sec. 4;
Con. Ord., 1898, chap. 85, sec. 20.)
1899. Georgia. — $25 market hunting license* required of any person killing or cap-
turing for sale, except on his own land, deer, quail, wild turkeys, or doves.
Not in effect until recommended by grand jury of the county. (Acts of
1899, p. 96.)
Illinois. — $10 nonresident county license, * good imtil June 1 following date
of issue, allows shipment of 25 birds. (Laws of 1899, p. 231, sec. 26.)
Maine. — * September law,'* permitting nonresidents on payment of $6 and
residents on payment of $4 to kill one deer in September, for food pur-
poses only, in Aroostook, Franklin, Hancock, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis,
Somerset, and Washington counties. (Pub. Laws of 1899, chap. 42, sec. 21.)
Minnesota. — $25 nonresident license and 25-cent resident license * required for
hunting deer, elk,* caribou, or moose. All licenses good one year from date
of issue and must contain description of licensee. (Laws of 1899, chap. 222,
sec. 53.)
North Carolina. — $25 nonresident license for club houses in Dare County. ( Pub.
Laws, chap. 133, sec. 2. )
North Dakota. — $25 nonresident and 75-cent resident license reenacted. Exemp-
tions same as in 1897, except that resident children under 16 are exempted.
(Laws of 1899, chap. 93, sec. 4.)
South Bakota. — $10 nonresident hunter's license* required for big game or
birds. (Laws of 1899, chap. 90, sec. 14.)
West Virginia. — $25 dollars nonresident county license * required for hunting
in the State. (Acts of 1899, chap. 22, sec. 17. )
Wisconsin. — Nonresident license fee for hunting deer reduced to $25. $10
license* established for hunting all other game. Resident license extended
to cover all game. Details of issue amended. (Laws of 1899, chap. 312. )
Wyoming. — Nonresident license fee increased from $20 to $40. $1 gun license*
required of each resilient hunting big game outside his own county. (Laws
of 1899, chap. 19, sec. 14.)
New Brnnswick. — Law of 1897 modified so as to dispense with bonding feature.
(Acts of 1899, sees. 39-45.)
Newfonndland. — Nonresident license fees for killing caribou reduced, and
licenses issued in three series: $40 license for 2 stags and 1 doe; $50 license
for 3 stags and 1 doe; $80 license for 5 stags and 2 does. (Deer preserva-
tion act of 1899, sees. 7-10.) , t-
62 HUNTING LICENSES.
1900. Horihweit Territoriei.— 11 nonresident permits *, limited to 5 days, may be issaed
by any game guardian or the commissioner of agriculture to guests of
residents hunting with their hosts. (Ordinances of 1899, chap. 23, sec. 3. )
Quebec — Beenactment of nonresident license provisions of 1897. (62 Vic,
chap. 24, sec. 1416.)
Iowa. — $10 nonresident county license,* permitting export of 25 birds or
animals. (Laws of 1900, chap. 86. )
License fees to be credited to game protection fund. (Ibid., chap. 87. )
Maryland. —
Cecil. — Chapter 566, Laws of 1894, repealed, and $10 license required for
use of sink box by residents on Elk and Bohemia rivers. (Laws of 1900,
chaps. 372 and 444.)
Doroheiter. — Nonresidents (except taxpayers) prohibited* from shooting
or killing ducks, geese, brant, or swans within 1 mile of shore line of
Middle or Lower Hooper Island without permission of landowners.
(Laws of 1900, chap. 378.)
Garrett. — $25 nonresident license * required for hunting any game. ( Laws
of 1900, chap. 189.)
Somerset. — $9.50 nonresident hcense required for hunting any game. ( Not
needed by anyone invited and accompanied by a resident. (Laws of
1900, chap. 203.)
Hew York. — Nonresidents prohibited * from taking fish or game on fresh waters
forming part of State boundary except imder same conditions or fees as are
required of citizens of New York in State of nonresident. (Laws of 1900,
chap. 429.)
Virginia. — $10 nonresident license* required for hunting deer, partridges, pheas-
ants, and wild turkeys in Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Highland,
or Rockbridge counties. License good only in county of issue, but permis-
sion of landowner obviates necessity for license. (Laws of 1900, chap. 1002,
sec. 4.) $10 nonresident license required for hunting partridges (or quail)
in Lee County. License carries privilege of shipping quail killed by licensee.
(Ibid., chap. 330.)
Manitoba. — $25 nonresident Ucense* required for hunting in the Province and
issued at discretion of minister of agriculture and immigration. (63 and 64
Vic, chap. 14, sec. 18.)
Hew Brunswick. — $30 nonresident license required for hunting any animals or
birds in Westmoreland County; fee for nonresident license for moose and
caribou raised to $30. (63 Vic, chap. 39, sec. 3. )
Ontario. — $25 nonresident and $2 resident license provisions reenacted. $5
resident Ucense* established for killing moose, reindeer, or caribou. (Game-
protection act 1900, sec. 25. )
1901. Illinois. — $10 nonresident county license extended* to cover State. License
must bear photograph of holder. (Laws of 1901, p. 212.)
Indiana. — $25 license* required of nonresidents. Permit required for hunting
squirrels and wild fowl, October 1 to November 10. Issued without charge
to residents and to nonresidents holding license. (Laws of 1901, chap. 203. )
Maine. — Repeal of the September deer law. (Pub. Laws, 1901, chap. 278.)
Minnesota. — License provisions of 1899 amended to permit residents to obtain
licenses upon written (formerly personal) application to county auditor,
received through office of any city, village, or town clerk before whom appli-
cant appears. (Laws of 1901, chap. 342.)
Montana. — $25 big game license* and $15 game-bird license* required of non-
residents. Taxpayers exempt (Laws of 1901, p. 135, sees. 19-24.)
IKDEX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 63
1901. Nebraska. — $10 nonresident* and $1 resident licenses* required for hunting
any animals or birds; resident license not required in county of domicile.
(Laws of 1901, chap. 36, art. 4. )
Oregon. — 110 market-hunting license* required of nonresidents. (Laws of
1901, p. 231, sec. 38.)
PennBylvania. — $10 license* required of nonresidents owning no land in Penn-
sylvania and who wish to hunt in the State. Guns and shooting parapher-
nalia used in violation of law may be seized. (Laws of 1901, chap. 67. )
South Dakota. — $25 nonresident and $1 resident * county licenses required for
hunting big game. Licenses not to be issued before November 1 and good
only during that calendar year. (Laws of 1901, chap. 132, sees. 10, 15.)
Tennessee. — Nonresidents of Bledsoe County prohibited * from hunting deer,
quail (partridge), or wild turkey in that county. (Laws of 1901, chap. 213, )
Washington. — $10 nonresident license* and $1 resident license* required for
hunting in the State; $20 extra for killing elk. License good only in county
in which issued and required of all persons 16 years of age or over. Resi-
dent licenses may be obtained by citizens of Idaho and Oregon. (Laws of
1901, chap. 134, sec. 9.)
Northwest Territories. — ^$15 nonresident license, good for calendar year, required
for hunting any big game or birds in the Territories whether protected by
the ordinance or not. (Ordinances of 1901, chap. 32, sec. 3. )
1902. Kentncky. — $25 nonresident license * required for hunting in the State. (Laws
of 1902, chap. 79.)
Louisiana. — Nonresidents prohibited from hunting in the State.* (Laws of
1902, chap. 65.)
Karyland —
Calvert. — $10 nonresident license * required for hunting rabbits, partridges,
and woodcock. (Not needed by anyone hunting by invitation or under
written permission on land of a resident. ) (Laws of 1902, chap. 493. )
Cecil. — $5.50 nonresident license* required for hunting rabbits, quail or
partridges, grouse, woodcock, reedbirds, ortolan (rail), and summer ducks.
(Not needed by anyone hunting by permission on land of a resident.)
(Laws of 1902, chap. 434.)
Dorchester. — ^Nonresidents prohibited from hunting ducks, geese, brant,
or swan within 3 miles of shore line of Middle and Lower Hooper Island
without consent of landowners.
Frederick. — $15 nonresident license* required for hunting rabbits, par-
tridges, pheasants, wild turkeys, woodcock, and ducks. (Not needed by
anyone hunting by written permission on land of a resident.) (Laws of
1902, chap. 176.)
Garrett. — Nonresidents prohibited from selling quail, pheasants, partridges,
wild turkeys, and woodcock within county. (Laws of 1902, chap. 116. )
Montgomery. — $15 nonresident license * required for hunting squirrels, rab-
bits, partridges, pheasants, wild turkeys, woodcock, and ducks. (Not
needed by anyone hunting by written permission on land of a resident. )
Prince George. — $20 nonresident license required for hunting rabbits, par-
tridges, pheasants, and woodcock. (Not needed by anyone hunting by
written permission on land of a resident. )
Washington.— $10 nonresident license* required for hunting or fishing in
Washington County, except on the Potomac River. Taxpayers, residents of
Maryland or the District of Columbia, and anyone hunting by permission on
the land of a resident of the county are exempt. (Laws of 1902, chap. 379.)
Wicomico. — $10 nonresident license * required for hunting any game. ( Not
needed by anyone invited and accompanied by a resident. ) (Laws of 1902,
chap. 222.
64 HUNTING LICENSES.
1902. New Jersey. — $10 nonresident license* required for hunting any game except
waterfowl, snipe, and mudhens. (Laws of 1902, chap. 263,)
Hew York. — Nonresidents from States which require licenses, can kill game only
under licenses * similar to those required of nonresidents in their own States.
(Laws of 1902, chap. 77.)
Ohio. — $25 nonresident license* permitting export of 50 animals and birds.
(Lawsof 1902, p. 379.)
Newfoundland. — Nonresident license fee increased from $80 to $100 and limit
placed at 3 stag caribou. (Preservation of deer act, 1902, sec. 13. )
Nova Scotia.— Nonresident license changed to * general license to shoot game'
and fee increased from $30 to $40. * License to shoot small game,' $10.
(Laws of 1902, chap. 23, sec. 2.)
1908. Arkansas. — Repeal of former license laws. Nonresidents not permitted to
hunt in the State* except in Mississippi County. (Acts of 1903, chap. 162,
sees. 4, 11.)
Colorado. — $25 nonresident license* required for hunting all game and $1 per
day ($2 first day) for birds. $1 State hunting or resident license* estab-
lished. (Laws of 1903, chapter 112, Division G. )
Florida. — $10 nonresident license extended to cover all game. Act not appli-
cable to counties which have special game laws. (Laws of 1903, chap.
5251, sec. 6.)
Nonresidents prohibited from hunting in Santa Rosa County without
permission of owner, of land (ibid., chap. 5292), or in Lafayette County
except upon payment of $1 per day* to game warden (ibid., chap. 5293).
Idaho.— $25 nonresident license* required for hunting all game, $5 license* for
birds. $1 resident license* established. (Laws of 1903, p. 192, sec. 8.)
Illinois. — Nonresident license fee increased from $10 to $15 and requirement
of photograph abolished. $1 resident license* established. (Laws of 1903,
p. 214, sec. 25. )
Indiana. — $25 nonresident license required for hunting in the State; permits
export of 24 birds. Permit for hunting squirrels October 1 to November 10
abolished; $1 required from residents for permit* for hunting waterfowl
October 1 to November 10. Both nonresident and resident licenses must
bear photograph of licensee. (Acts of 1903, chap. 225, sees. 4-5.)
Maine. — $15 nonresident license * required for hunting moose or deer. (Public
Laws of 1903, chap. 99.)
$5 nonresident license* required for hunting teal, ducks, sea or shore birds
in Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, and Waldo counties; and towns of Brunswick,
Freeport, and Harps well in Cumberland County. (Public Laws of 1903,
chap. 236.)
Minnesota. — Reenactment of former license provisions with addition of $10
nonresident license* for small game; resident license extended to cover all
game animals and fee increased to $1. (Laws of 1903, chap. 336, sees. 39-41. )
Repeal of license laws of 1895, 1899, and 1901. (Ibid., sec. 64.)
New Hampshire. — $10 nonresident license* required for hunting deer. (Laws
of 1903, chap. 87.)
New York.— Nonresident license required for hunting game. Fee not less than
that required of resident of New York in State of applicant; and, if none,
amount to be fixed by commissioner of forestry, fisheries, and game. (Laws
of 1903, chap. 475.)
North Carolina. — $10 nonresident license * required for hunting in the State.
(Private Laws of 1903, chap. 337, sec. 10.)
$20 nonresident license* required for hunting quail, partridges, or wild
turkeys in Cabarrus County. (Pub. Laws of 1903, chap. 675, sec. 2.)
INDEX OF LICENSE LEGISLATION. 65
1908. Pennsylyania. — ^$10 nonresident license* required of unnaturalized foreign-born,
residents who hunt in the State. (Laws of 1903, chap. 136. )
Tennessee. — Nonresident* and |25 market hunting licenses* required for hunt-
ing in the State. Fee for nonresident license same as resident of Tennessee
is required to pay in State of applicant. ( Acts, of 1903, chap. 169, sees. 9, 14. )
Utah. — ^$10 nonresident gun license * required for hunting any game animals or
birds in the State. (Laws of 1903, chap. 116, sec. 2.)
Virginia. — $10 nonresident license * required for hunting in the State. Chil-
dren and guests of resident landowners exempt, but host must hunt with
his guest and must not, directly or indirectly, receive any compensation from
him. (Acts 1903, chaps. 227, 286, sec. 2070c.)
Washington. — Uniform $1 county license * required of residents and nonresi-
dents hunting in the State. (Laws of 1903, chap. 94. )
West Virgfinia. — Nonresident license extended* to cover the State and fee
reduced from $25 to $15. (Acts of 1903, chap. 46, sec. 17.)
Wyoming. — Nonresident gun license fee increased from $40 to $50. (Laws of
1903, chap. 44, sec. 8.)
New Brunswick. — Reenactment of license provisions with addition of 25 cent,
resident license to hunt any game in Westmoreland County. (Con. Stat.,
Vol. I, chap. 33, sees. 44-46. )
Hewfonndland. — Nonresident license fee reduced from $100 to $50. (Acts of
1903, chap. 8, sec. 3.)
Korthwest Territories. — $25 general nonresident license and $15 bird license*
required of nonresidents for hunting in the Territories. General license
permits export of trophies of big game. (Ordinances of 1903, 2d sess., chap.
29, sec. 18, passed Nev. 1, 1903.)
1904. Kentncky* — UiJonresident license fee reduced from $25 to amount required of
citizens of Kentucky in State of applicant.* (Acts of 1904, chap. 48. )
Lonisiana. — $10 nonresident license * substituted for absolute prohibition; same
license require*! of unnaturalized foreign-bom residents. $25 market hunt-
ing license established. (Laws of 1904, chap. — . )
Maryland —
Allegany. — $10 nonresident license * required for hunting any game. ( Laws
of 1904, chap. 439.)
Anne Arnndel. — Previous laws modified so as to remove restrictions from
nonresident owners of land in county and permit nonresident not owning
land to hunt if invited by a resident and hunting with him on his own land
or to shoot wild fowl from a licensed blind on invitation of owner.
Baltimore. — $5 nonresident license required for hunting squirrels, rabbitp,
partridges, pheasants, woodcock, and jacksnipe. Photograph of holder
must be attached to license. Nonresident taxpayers and persons hunting^ by
written permission on the land of a resident exempt. (Laws of 1904,
chap. 542.)
Fatnzent Eiver.— $10 license * for himting birds required of nonresident^,^
except members of certain incorporated hunting clubs, of not more than 30
members, owning or leasing land within one mile of the river and improved
by a club-house. Licensee must also secure written permission of owner of
land adjacent to water on which he hunts. $2.50 pusher*s license required
of residents of Maryland pushing, paddling, or conveying anyone hunting
ortolan, rail, reedbirds, ducks, or geese. (Laws of 1904, chap. 509.)
Somerset— $10 nonresident and $1 resident license* required (except in
case of resident landholders) for hunting squirrels, rabbits, muskrats, quail
or partridges, doves, woodcock, ducks, and geese. (Laws of 1904, chap. 198. )
6095— No. 19—04 5
66 HUNTING LICENSES.
1904. Ohio. — $15 nonresident license, good until December 1 following date of issue,
required for hunting in the State; fee formerly $25. (Laws of 1904, p. 474,
sec. 22. )
Nova Scotia. — $30 nonresident license required for hunting moose. Licensee
may take with him from the Province any moose or caribou which he has
lawfully killed. (Laws of 1904, chap. 14.)
BEFEBENCES TO ARTICLES ON NONBESrOENT LICENSES.
Much discussion of the license system has appeared in sportsmen's
journals in recent years, mostly in the form of brief articles and notes,
and the following list of titles, arranged chronologically, has been
prepared for the convenience of persons who may desire to examine
this material. No attempt has been made to give a complete index of
the literature of the subject, or to do more than to indicate some of
the more important articles which have been consulted in the prepar-
ation of this bulletin:
1876. A MEMBER, Game Protection in New Jersey. [Defense of the charter of the
West Jersey Game Protective Association.] <Forest and Stream, V, p.
188, Oct. 28, 1875.
Editorial, Game Protection — The Florida Snap Law [Nonresident license act
of 1875]. <Forest and Stream, V, p. 328, Dec. 30, 1875; see also same
volume, pp. 377-378.
1880. C, Shooting Dogs and Taxing Guns. [Advocates $10-$15 Nonresident Gun
License good throughout the State or in contiguous counties.] <Forest and
Stream, XIII, p. 1012, Jan. ^2, 1880.
1887. Editorial, The Arkansas Law Unconstitutional. [Decision of Craighead
County Circuit Court] < Am. Field, XXVIl, p. 49, Jan. 15, 1887.
Anonymous, Non-Resident Shooting in Poinsett County, Arkansas. [Act of
1875 declared unconstitutional by Poinsett County Circuit Court.] <Am.
Field, XX VIII, pp. 3-4, July 2, 1887.
1895. Editorial, Non- Resident Discriminations. <Forest and Stream, XLIV, p. HI,
Jan. 26, 1895.
1896. Editorial, A New Jersey Scheme [for requiring nonresidents to obtain $10
licenses to hunt or fish]. <Forest and Stream, XLVl, p. 129, Feb. 15, 1896.
RoBBiNs, C. E., North Dakota Non-Residents [fail to secure writ compelling
auditor to grant licenses for same amount charged residents]. < Forest and
Stream, XLVI, p. 277, April 4, 1896.
Editorial note, Snapshots [ — the Michigan License System]. <Forest and
Stream, XLVII, p. 1, July 4, 1896.
1897. Hough, E., The Wisconsin Deer Licenses. [Summary for 1897]. <Forest
and Stream, XLIX, p. 487, Dec. 18, 1897.
1898. Talcott, William A., Jr., [Constitutionality of] Non- Resident Licenses.
<Forest and Stream, L, pp. 205-206, Mar. 12, 1898.
Editorial note [Failure to pass a $2 Non-Resident License Law in New Jer-
sey]. <Forest and Stream, L, p. 281, April 9, 1898.
Hough, E., [Abuse of] Wisconsin Deer Licenses. <Forest and Stream, Li,
p. 349, Oct. 29, 1898.
1899. Cunningham, G. W., Michigan Deer [and the Operation of the License Law].
< Forest and Stream, Lli, p. 10, Jan. 7, 18^.
67
68 HUNTING LICENSES.
1899. Editorial note [The Feeling engendered by Non-Resident Licenses]. <For-
est and Stream, LII, p. 61, Jan. 28, 1899.
Editorial, The Wyoming Guide [and Non-Resident] License System. <Forest
and Stream, LII, p. 241, April 1, 1899.
Editorial, [Non-Resident Licenses] In Florida. <Fore8t and Stream, LII,
p. 401, May 27, 1899.
Editorial, Non-Resident License Laws rre Constitutional. <Fore8t and
Stream, LIII, p. 181, Sept. 2, 1899.
Hough, E., Illinois [Non-Resident License] Law Sustained. <Forest and
Stream, LIII, p. 406, Nov. 18, 1899.
Editorial, The Non-Resident License Law Upheld. <Am. Field, LII, p. 401,
Nov. 18, 1899.
1901. Johnson, F. C. [Some Hardships of Non-Resident License Laws.] <Am. Field,
LV, p. 187, Mar. 9, 1901.
Anonymous, [Defense of] Non-Resident License Laws. <Am. Field, LVI, p.
206, Sept. 14, 1901.
1902. West Virginian. Hunting Licenses — Non-Resident and Resident. < Am. Field,
LVII, p. 216, Mar. 8, 1902.
Editorial Note, Non-Resident License Laws. < Am. Field, LVIII, p. 146,
Aug. 16, 1902.
Editorial, [A Fund] To Test the Non-Resident Law. < Am. Field, LVII.
p. 593, Dec. 20, 1902.
Nowlin, D. C, Non-Resident Hunting Licenses [in Wyomingand their Results].
< Forest and Stream, LIX, p. 105, Aug. 9, 1902.
1908. Anonymous, Game Law Declared Unconstitutional [Decision of Crittenden
County Circuit Court, Arkansas, on the Non-Resident Law of 1903]. < Am.
' Field, LX, p. 52, July 18, 1903.
Editorial, Non-Resident Land Owners [under the Arkansas Law]. < Am.
Field, LX, p. 145, Aug. 15, 1903.
Anonymous, [Decision of the Superior Court of Spokane County, Washington,
on the Non-Resident Law of 1903]. < Field and Stream, VIII, p. 501, Oct.,
1903.
INDEX.
Allen V. Wyckoff, ^-4B.
Amaidment» ionaateeDtls, 4S.
Arkansas, destruction of game by market hun-
ters, 14.
index, 55-^.
proposed high license, 14.
summary, 19.
Bag limit, excess licenses, 17.
Big-game licenses, 15.
number and receipts, 89-40.
Bills considered, 14.
Bird license in Colorado, 18.
Blinds, 17.
Blow bill, 16,17.
Bohemia River, 17.
Booby blinds, 17.
British Columbia, exemptions, 81.
index, 68-60.
summary, 22.
Bush blinds, 17.
Camping by nonresidents prohibited, 11.
Canada, establishment of license system, 15.
exemptions, 31.
Chesapeake Bay, wild-fowl protection, 16, 17.
Clerks' fees, 43.
Colorado, immigrant license, 17.
index, 64.
nonresident county bird license, 13.
summary, 19.
Confiscation of hunting paraphernalia, 43-44.
Constitution, clauses affecting license legisla-
tion, 46.
Constitutionality of nonresident license legisla-
tion, 32, 46-50.
Convictions for bunting without license, 44.
Corfield v. Coryell, 48-49.
Cost of collection, 42-43.
County licenses, 13-14, 16^ 26.
Colorado, 13.
Iowa, 13.
Maryland, 13.
New York, 13.
South Carolina, 13.
South Dakota, 13.
Stat€8 in which now in force, 26.
Washington, 13.
West Virginia, 13.
County of residence, license required outside, 19.
County prohibitions, 11-12.
Coupon licenses, 24, 43.
Craighead County court decision, 46.
Crittenden County court decision, 47.
Cummings v. People, 47.
Decisions of courts, 32, 46-50.
Allen V. Vi^ckoa, 47-48.
California, 49.
Corfield v. Coryell, 48-49.
Craighead County, Ark., 46.
Crittenden County, Ark., 47.
Cummings v. People, 47.
Ex parte Maier, 49.
Qeer v. Connecticut, 49.
Haney v. Compton,49.
Illinois, 47.
In re Eberle, 32, 48.
McCready v. Virginia, 18, 49-50.
New Jersey, 47-48, 49.
Poinsett County, Ark., 46.
Rhode Island, 49.
Spokane County, Wash., 46.
State V. Corson, 49.
Virginia, 4ft-60.
Delaware Game Protective Association, 12.
Delaware, index, 56.
summary, 19.
Description of licensee required, 24.
Disposition of fees, 36-37.
Dorchester County, Md., exemption, 31.
Ducking police in Maryland, 16-17.
Early laws, 10, 33.
Eastern Shore Game Protective Association, 13.
Elk River, 17.
Enforcement, 43-44.
Excess of bag limit licensed, 17.
Exemptions under license laws, 80-32.
British, 51.
reccnnmendatton of game wardens, 32.
Ex parte Maier, 49.
Fall wild-fowl license in Indiana, 18.
Fees, 25-26.
disposition, 36, 37.
Fees of clerks, large, 43.
Firearms, permit, 18.
Fire hunting by nonresidents prohibited, 11.
Florida, early license law, 13.
^ index, 55-64.
Lafayette County law, 11.
Taylor County law, 11.
summary, 19.
Foreign licenses, 51-64.
German East Africa, 53.
German Southwest Africa, 53.
70
INDEX.
Foreign licenses, Germany, 62.
Great Britain, 51-52.
Japan. 62-53.
New Zealand, 62.
Sudan, 53-64.
Transvaal, 54.
Game, destroyed by market hunters in Arkansas,
14.
small, 18.
Game, Bird and Fish Protective Association, 16.
Game license, English, 61.
Game wardens, recommendations concerning ex-
emptions, 82.
Geer v. Connecticut, 49.
General licenses, 16-16, 17.
Georgia, index, 61.
law of 1858, 11.
market hunting, 16.
summary, 19. ' y ■
German East Africa, licenses, 63.
German Southwest Africa, licenses, 63.
Germany, licenses, 52.
Great Britain, licenses, 51-52.
Guests exempted in Maryland, 31.
Gun license, English, 62.
Haney v. Compton, 49.
Hawaii, index, 60.
law, 18.
summary, 19.
High license for big game, 16.
History of licenses, 9-23.
Hunting on one's own land, no license required,
19.
Hunting paraphernalia, confiscation, 43-44.
Hunting without license, convictions, 44.
Idaho, exemptions, 81.
index, 64.
summary, 19.
Illinois, exemptions, 31.
index, 61-64.
nonresident county license, 18.
summary, 19.
Immigrant license in Colorado, 17.
Income from licenses, 1902 and 1908, 36-39.
Index of license legislation, 56-66.
Indiana, fall license for wild fowl, 18.
index, 62-64.
summary, 19.
InreEberle, 32,48.
Iowa, index, 62.
nonresident county license, 13.
summary, 19.
Issue of licenses, 26-30.
Japan, licenses, 52-53.
Kent County, Md., exemptions, 81.
Kentucky, index, 63-65.
summary, 19.
Laws, early, 10, 88.
Laws quoted:
Illinois, 1901, 34.
Maryland, 1872,16.
New Jersey, 1873, 12.
1902,33.
North Carolina, 1746, la
1768, 33.
1854, 11.
Virginia, 1691. 10.
Licensed hunters, number in certain States in
1903, 38.
Licensee, description required, 24.
photograph r^uired, 24.
License legislation, constitutionality, 82, 46-50.
index, 55-66.
market hunting, 14-16.
present status, 46.
summary, 19-28.
Licenses, big-game, 15, 89-10.
bird, 13.
booby blind, 17.
bush blind, 17.
cost of collection, 42-48.
county, 18-14.
coupon, 24, 43.
details, 24-32.
exemptions, 30-32.
fees, 25-26.
foreign, 51-54.
forms, 24-26.
gun, 52.
history, 9-28.
immigrant, 12.
local, 17.
moose, 40.
nonresident, 12-14, 83-36.
not required, 19.
number in certain Statec in 1903, 88.
objects, 33-41.
Quebec, special, 17.
receipts, 36, 38.
reciprocal, 24-25.
required outside of county of residence, 19.
resident, 16-19, 36-«7.
sink-box, 37.
sneak-boat, 37.
Limitations of license syntem, 42-44.
Little Choptank River restrictions, 11.
Local licenses, 12-14.
Louisiana, Caddo Parish law, 12.
index, 6&-66.
prohibition, 12,15.
summary, 19.
McCready v. Virginia, 18, 49-60.
Magothy River, 17.
Maine, index, 61-64.
September law, 18.
summary, 19.
Manitoba, index, 58-60.
summary, 22.
Market hunting, extent of destruction, 14.
Market hunting licenses, 11-12, 14-15.
Market hunting prohibitions, Missouri, 14.
Tennessee, 14.
Maryland, Chesapeake Bay, 16, 17.
counties exempting guests, 31.
ducking police, 16-17.
index, 55-45.
Magothy River, 17.
Patuxent River, 11.
Sassafras River, 17.
Severn River, 17.
South River, 17.
summary, 19-20.
Susquehanna Flats,. 16-17.
wild fowl license laws, 16-17.
INDEX.
71
Michigan, index, 69-60.
licenses issaed 1895-1903, 40.
summary, 21.
Minnesota, index, 60-64.
summary, 21.
Missouri, index, 5&-66.
nonresident prohibition, 11, 14.
summary, 20.
Montana, exemption, 90.
index, 62.
summary, 21.
Moose licenses, Ontario, 40.
Nebraska, index, 63.
summary, 21.
New Brunswick, index, 5&-66.
summary, 22.
Newfoundland, exemption, 81.
index, 58-«5.
summary, 22.
New Hampshire, exemption, 80.
index, 62.
summary, 21.
New Jersey, early oyster law, 10.
exemptions, 80.
index, 66-64.
law of 1873, 12.
summary, 21.
New York, index, 56-64.
summary, 21.
New Zealand, licenses, 52.
Nonresident licenses, details of issue, 26-29.
history, 12-16.
issued in 1902 and 1908, 85.
objects, 3S-36.
Nonresidents, carrying home game, 82.
discrimination against, 10-12.
prohibited from camping and fire hunting, 11.
prohibited from hunting, 11-12, 14-16.
prohibited^ from planting oysters, 49-50.
prohibited from tak i n g oy m tc Wi 10, 48-49.
North Carolina, Currituck County law, 11.
early laws, 10, 83.
index, 56-64.
law of 1768, 10, 33.
summary, 21.
wild fowl restrictions, 11,
North Dakota, exemption, 30, 32.
index, 60-61.
summary, 21.
Northwest Territories, index, 69-65.
summary, 22.
Nova Scotia, exemption, 31.
index, 57-66.
summary, 22.
Number of big game licenses, 89-40.
Number of licensed hunters in certain States in
1903, 88-39.
Oahu license, 18.
Objects of licenses, 33-41.
Illinois, 84.
New Jersey, 88.
nonresident, 88-36.
North Carolina, 88.
resident, 86-37.
Ohio, index, 64-66.
summary, 21.
Ontario, index, 68-62.
licenses issued 1895-1906, 40.
moose licenses, 40.
summary, 23.
Oregon, index, 63.
market hunting, 15.
summary, 21.
Oyster laws, 10, 48-60.
Patuxent River restrictions, 11.
Pennsylvania, exemption, 80.
index, 63-65.
summary, 21.
Permit to carry firearms, 18.
Photograph of licensee required, 24.
Poinsett County court decision, 46.
Prohibition of camping and fire huntings by non-
residents, 11.
Prohibition of hunting by nonresidents, 11-12,
14-15.
Prohibition of oyster planting by nonresidents,
49-50.
Prohibition of oyster taking by nonresidents, 10,
48-49.
Prohibitions, county, 11-12.
Quebec, index, 57-62.
special licenses, 17.
summary, 23.
Receipts from licenses, 36,38.
Reciprocal licenses, 24-26.
Resident licenses, 16-19, 86-87.
details of issue, 29-30.
history, 16-19.
issued in 1902 and 1908, 37.
objects, 36-37.
Residents, unnaturalized foreign bom, 84.
Sassafras River, 17.
September law in Maine, 18.
Settlers' permits, 41.
Severn River, 17.
Sink boxes, 11,16-17.
Sink-box licenses, 37.
Small game, 18.
Sneak-boat licenses, 87.
South Carolina, Beaufort County, 18.
exemption, 30.
high license, 15.
index, 56-58.
summary, 21.
South Dakota, county license, 13.
index, 61-63.
summary, 21.
South River, 17.
Special licenses in Quebec, 17.
Special privileges, 42.
Spokane County court decision, 46.
State V. Corson, 49.
Staten Island, N. Y., 13.
Statistics, comparison, 37-41.
Statistics of former years, number, 40-41.
Sudan, 63-64.
Summary of license legislation, 19-23.
Susquehanna Flats, 16-17.
Tables:
Details of issue of nonresident licenses, 26-29.
Details of issue of resident licenses, 29-30.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11